[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-tar] 1.15.91 file name too long to be stored in a GNU multivolu
From: |
mark jackson |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-tar] 1.15.91 file name too long to be stored in a GNU multivolume header, truncated |
Date: |
Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:50:58 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) |
Sergey Poznyakoff schrieb:
> mark jackson <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> the interesting thing comes now when i compare the original-directories
>> and the new created directories with
>>
>> "diff -r <original-directory> <new created directory>"
>>
>> there is NO difference; so it seems that the backup worked perfect;
>> so why are these errormessages?
>>
>
> These are not error messages, only warnings.
>
> When creating multivolume backups it often happens that a file
> needs to be split between two volumes. In this case GNU tar
> stores the file name along with some additional data at the
> beginning of the next volume in a special block called volume
> header. In GNU format this header can accomodate file names
> up to 100 characters long; if the actual name is longer than
> that, tar truncates it and stores only the first 100 characters
> in the header. This is what
>
> "file name too long to be stored in a GNU multivolume header, truncated"
>
> diagnostics means.
>
> When restoring from a multivolume backup, tar uses volume headers
> to verify that the user is feeding archive volumes in the right order. This
> is achieved by comparing the file name and starting byte offset stored
> in the next volume with the name and offset of the file being extracted.
> If tar notices that the next volume contains a truncated name and the
> offset of that volume matches, it continues extracting the file but
> issues the warning
>
> tar: `foo' is possibly continued on this volume: header contains truncated
> name
>
> The purpose of this warning is to draw user's attention to the fact that
> tar is not 100% sure this is the right volume, since it was only able to
> compare first 100 bytes of the file name and the byte offsets.
>
> Regards,
> Sergey
>
>
>
thanks for this very good explanation;
Regards
Mark