From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 18 02:09:24 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234FE106566B for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:09:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tajudd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (mail-yw0-f178.google.com [209.85.211.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAAD8FC0C for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:09:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywh8 with SMTP id 8so2981621ywh.3 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:09:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qdgTZeossD7bMKvG8KyvPh35vpXD33IGeG3nZCicJRo=; b=R4mcWFe3L2rvYlZB8axOJcPnEc1qKGmTYdsP1rmUaQRJCxOIdWx8DZfTn35HfjsgPr IA/fPoxRa9Y4Ftyj7UyZ6BXOAA1JTpLjansWlO413gDvrPelaJoIW8uZpxOL4kmTxapb hGupPiAUbpFwmgrFNF3faAe7YfIM7nGcZNGDs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=wH7RQHAbKFKze1QetSgiua7RqnordtDD6KWo1BBcUktLHb0a+Aw2hpdb3mPYiV4p8V 7nZUpvgfm7OjXOL4ikm6QJmvxyAHXRUHXIM66AWtb6LeR9Adgz7LgYEGX2G5ZOgAttL9 eYzXYw4Jnt8VrTxLQmwcBni5LHdHgzQnrKGso= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.10.13 with SMTP id n13mr2929141ani.88.1255831763208; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:09:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1255828485.5100.3.camel@x1-6-00-11-09-00-e4-00.search.b.superkabel.de> References: <1255727601.4640.4.camel@x1-6-00-11-09-00-e4-00.search.b.superkabel.de> <20091016213732.GA61433@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <20091017232131.GB66093@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <1255828485.5100.3.camel@x1-6-00-11-09-00-e4-00.search.b.superkabel.de> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:09:22 -0600 Message-ID: From: Tim Judd To: Stevan Tiefert Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: small question about tape-based dumps X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:09:24 -0000 On 10/17/09, Stevan Tiefert wrote: > Am Samstag, den 17.10.2009, 18:49 -0600 schrieb Tim Judd: >> On 10/17/09, Jerry McAllister wrote: >> >> >> > You do not need to. dump alrady writes that when it finishes each time. >> > If you to that, you will get a second one at that location. >> > >> > You do not need to do the rewind and mt fsf between each dump. I just >> > do it to make it very clear to myself in my scripts what I am expecting >> > and that I am doing it right. >> > >> > ////jerry >> >> >> >> If dump is the tool for tapes, and tar is named after tape archives... > > Please, no flamewar!!! Wasn't planning on starting one. Sorry if it came across that way. > >> Do both of these utilities write the *proper* EOF to whatever medium >> it's writing to? > > They both write EOF. > >> I bring this up, because dump can also write to a file on a formatted >> FS. Does the file end with this same EOF? What does tar do? > > There is only one EOF: The EOF. > > >> Why have a mt weof function if it's useless? I'm loosing the logic in >> this one, trying to make sure things work as they should. I admit >> tapes on bsd are so foreign to me, I might as well be speaking >> $another-language. > > weof is not useless. There are some file operations without writing an > EOF, like streams or something like that, but tar and dump are writing > with an EOF at the end of files :-) So it's a item for "good measure" rather than an item "as necessity" in creating backups. Thanks for all the info. I'm happy knowing more. --Tim