Re: dmp files

"Billy Verreynne" <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message news:aoluk4$ok5$2_at_ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Tommy wrote:
>
> >> Assuming you mean by transfer, you used FTP?
> >>
> >
> > No i used tape to transfer, more specifically the cpio command.
>
> Sheez, why did you not say that? :-)
>
> Better yet, why did you not do a man on cpio?
> ==
> cpio supports the following archive formats: binary, old ASCII, new
> ASCII, crc, HPUX binary, HPUX old ASCII, old tar, and POSIX.1 tar. The
> binary format is obso­lete because it encodes information about the files
> in a way that is not portable between different machine architectures.
The
> old ASCII format is portable between different machine architectures, but
> should not be used on file systems with more than 65536 i-nodes. The new
> ASCII format is portable between different machine architectures and
can
> be used on any size file system, but is not supported by all versions of
> cpio; currently, it is only supported by GNU and Unix System V R4.
>
> The crc format is like the new ASCII format, but also contains a checksum
> for each file which cpio calculates when creating an archive and verifies
> when the file is extracted from the archive. The HPUX formats are
> provided for compatibility with HPUX's cpio which stores device files
> differently.
>
> The tar format is provided for compatability with the tar program. It can
> not be used to archive files with names longer than 100 characters, and
> can not be used to archive "special" (block or character devices) files.
> The POSIX.1 tar format can not be used to archive files with names
> longer than 255 characters (less unless they have a "/" in just the right
> place).
>
> By default, cpio creates binary format archives, for compatibility with
> older cpio programs. When extracting from archives, cpio automatically
> recognizes which kind of archive it is reading and can read archives
> created on machines with a differ­ ent byte-order.
> ==
>
> What were the cpio parameters that you used? And should this thread not be
> in some Unix group instead?

cpio -ocvB

Im continuing this thread elsewhere...

>
> --
> Billy

TommyF Received on Thu Oct 17 2002 - 04:53:58 CDT