Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

sunburnt · Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 4016 Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

# Suggestion to the main Puppy Developers:

A menu item for backing up and restoring the SAVE file.

A restore option would also be added to the boot menu`s options.
So then it could do an instant recovery from a bad SAVE file ( common ).

Gzip the SAVE file with the date added in it`s name.
Show the SAVE file list when the boot menu option is invoked.
.

Henry · Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 812 Location: Oregon USA

sunburnt · Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 4016 Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

Henry; It`s interesting that you say not to copy the Save while in use.
I`ve heard this many times in the forum, but I`ve never had a problem.

I`ve copied the working Save file many dozens of times with no problems.
The same for SFS files, there`s no reason mounted files can`t be copied.
I`ve seen no warnings about copying mounted files in mount man files.

NOTE: I just copied the Save in this Puppy with no problems.
It`s understandable that writing to the Save during copying might barf it.

Why isn`t Pupsave Hot Backup on Puppy`s menu?
And I assume Pupsave Restore is the working part of Puppy`s bootup?

Henry · Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 812 Location: Oregon USA

Sunburnt,

I've had plenty of experience of corruption using the save file to copy itself. Usually not massive corruption but unacceptable in details. A word to the wise . . .

About hot back up and restore, why not just look at the urls I provided. They're pretty clear.

Henry

rhadon · Joined: 27 Mar 2008 Posts: 1228 Location: Germany

Hot Backup uses the usual cp command for copying, so how can it be more save than using this command manually?

OK, Hot Backup uses e2fsck after copying, but AFAIK nothing more. I like this program and use it for backups but I don't think it's safer than backing up a save file in use manually and then e2fsck. For me, both methods are safe enough.

Rolf

Henry · Joined: 29 Jul 2006 Posts: 812 Location: Oregon USA