mohamed@hscfvax.harvard.edu (Mohamed Ellozy) (07/15/88)
When our users close accounts they often want a backup of their stuff. No problem, tar it off and sell them the tape. We are now, for better or for worse, in the age of the PC. Hence many of our users are asking us to back up their accounts to diskettes (DOS only so far). We have a PC clone on our Ethernet, so the actual physical transfer of files is no problem. But what is the best way to get large parts of the directory tree down? Also, how do you deal with filenames on U*NX which will map to the same name on DOS, e. g. longname1.data and longname2.data will both give longname.dat. Also how do you deal with non-ascii files? Surely there are places where this is done on a routine basis. I would like to hear both suggestions based on thinking and actual experience. The latter would be especially welcome. mohamed
les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) (07/16/88)
In article <591@hscfvax.harvard.edu> mohamed@hscfvax.harvard.edu (Mohamed Ellozy) writes: >When our users close accounts they often want a backup of their stuff. >No problem, tar it off and sell them the tape. > >We are now, for better or for worse, in the age of the PC. Hence many >of our users are asking us to back up their accounts to diskettes (DOS >only so far). > >We have a PC clone on our Ethernet, so the actual physical transfer of >files is no problem. But what is the best way to get large parts of >the directory tree down? Also, how do you deal with filenames on U*NX >which will map to the same name on DOS, e. g. longname1.data and >longname2.data will both give longname.dat. Also how do you deal with >non-ascii files? First you should decide if you really want to access the data under DOS or just hang onto it for the purpose of transporting it to another unix machine. In the latter case you need to maintain the original unix filenames so using tar or cpio to bundle the files would work, followed by spliting into a size that will fit on the DOS diskettes. There are some DOS versions of tar and cpio that could extract the files on a PC if the archive is put back into one piece. Under DOS, the ARC program is popular for bundling files together with compression, and unix versions have been posted to the net. However, ARC does not provide for subdirectory names. ZOO is a similar program that has been posted to the net for both unix and dos, and it does provide support for subdirectories and for maintaining unix names with the ability to truncate them when extracting under dos. It's only disadvantage is that the unix machine where you want to extract the archive may not have the program unless you keep a copy of the source in another format. I would expect that keeping archives on DOS diskettes would be a pretty common practice, since most unix machines have unique tape and disk formats and everyone eventually has to come up with a way to get PC files in and out. The rb/sb communication programs combined with procomm using ymodem batch protocol works nicely, with kermit as a close second if you don't have a network connection or a compatible disk drive. The only thing missing from zoo that would make it ideal for this purpose is the ability to automatically break it's archive into arbitrary sized pieces (and extract a file given only the correct piece(s)). Les Mikesell
jsp@sp7040.UUCP (John Peters) (07/19/88)
In article <6006@chinet.UUCP<^>, les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
<^> and unix versions have been posted to the net. However, ARC does not
<^> provide for subdirectory names. ZOO is a similar program that has
<^> been posted to the net for both unix and dos, and it does provide
<^> support for subdirectories and for maintaining unix names with the
<^> ability to truncate them when extracting under dos. It's only disadvantage
<^> is that the unix machine where you want to extract the archive may
<^> not have the program unless you keep a copy of the source in another
<^> format.
<^>
<^> Les Mikesell
Would you please (or somebody) email the sources for both the dos and unix
versions of zoo to me (if they are PD). When I get them, I will port it
to the Atari ST and then there will be a more standard version of an
archiver on all three. Thanks,
-- Johnnie --