From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Scott Taylor" Subject: Re: tar vs dump Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2106.192.168.99.70.1155738058.squirrel@dctchambers.com> References: <3a1eedb70608151905v30b9b12bqe6e0dfc9f3541fc7@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: scott@dctchambers.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3a1eedb70608151905v30b9b12bqe6e0dfc9f3541fc7@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-admin@vger.kernel.org On Tue, August 15, 2006 19:05, jassduec@gmail.com wrote: > Hi All, > > Which is more reliable and better for taking full and incremental > backups tar or dump. I like dump more but came across some articles on > the redhat website with references to emails from Linus which state > that dump should not be used for backup on a linux system. > > Are there some free backup tools on linux which can take fast and > reliable full and incremental backups? I have been doing backup on > Solaris for years now and never had any issue with ufsdump, ufsrestore > and snapshots. Is it possible to get similar reliability on linux. I use BRU, it's not free but it's not expensive either. It's very reliable, and does what you are asking. Nothing wrong with tar though. -- Scott