Tar differences between RH 6.2 & 7.0

[Mick Russell]

 

Hi

 

I am a software developer who got sick & tired of SCO and all the costs involved. My clients have been running RH 6.2 with a full multi-user Vision database and my Retail program suite which is Acucobol based for +/- 2 yrs with NO PROBLEMS on Intel platforms.

 

When I upgraded my in-house comms to ISDN a RH 7.0 upgrade was the simplest method to support ISDN but has led to problems with tar in respect of 1/4 in SCSI tape drives (525Mb, 1Gb & 2Gb - Tandbergs & Vipers).

 

Under RH 6.2 I execute:

 

tar -cvf /dev/st0 -z (followed by whatever needed backing up)

Speed, compression & reliabilty of the backup is superb as is portability between different systems - always a problem under SCO.

 

Using the same tar command under RH 7.0 results in the following problems:

 

1) Backing up the program directory which comprises many small files results in data / file loss - whilst tar reports that all files have been written use of tar -tvf /dev/st0 -z (or -xvf) shows that the last few files have been ignored or truncated.

 

2) When backing up Vision data files (suffix .vis for data .vix for index) the last file (thankfully a .vix) is truncated which requires a rebuild of the file in question.

 

3) When using the -t or -x options the tape does not rewind and requires a Ctrl C to perform this operation.

 

I assume these problems are related to Blocking Factor & Record Size options but do not understand why they have been introduced. I have also discovered that these problems can be overcome by not using compression but the backup then takes as long as the old SCO version - not good plus multiple tapes would be required on some client sites.

 

All comments & suggestions eagerly awaited.

 

 

Regards ......  Mick Russell