Is dump dumb? (Was: Contest: dump(8) parameters for DC300XL 1/4" ...)

[G.Pavlov]

In article <23063 at labrea.Stanford.EDU>, karish at denali.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) writes:
> In article <170 at cui.UUCP> petitp at cui.UUCP (PETITPIERRE Dominique) writes:
> >	- Why isn't it possible to specify many file system to be stored
> >	on the same tape (cartridge).
>   What happens when you want to re-use the first part of the tape, and the
>   file system you want to dump has grown?  You're not able to use the tape
>   efficiently unless you dump both file systems again.  If you take seriously
>   the purpose of dump, which is to provide security of your users' data,
>   you may appreciate that it's better to put backups on separate tapes, so
>   that failure of a single tape does not destroy two backups.
> 
  - e.g., the "us programmers know what's best for you" argument.

  If you do, in fact, take backup seriously, you will set up a schedule of fre-
  quent full dumps and schedule incremental dumps for every day in-between. If
  you also happen to own one of the newer high-density cartridge drives, you
  are typically able to fit far more than one file system on one cartridge. For
  ONE backup.

  greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny