Re: Windows 95 (VFAT) file systems?
Ben Wing (wing@netcom.com)
Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:20:59 GMT
Marty Leisner writes:
> ...
> >
> > _VERY_ useful when the disk you were backing up gets trashed.
> > How about restoring it then?
> >
> > Anyway, why do the drivers like ntfs/hpfs etc allways go readonly?
> > If they have the structures etc. done enough to read the dir entrys
> > and the files, shouldn't they be able to update them?
> >
> > Oh well. Just a personal pet peeve.
>
>
> I was talking about backing "files" as opposed to low-level filesystems...
>
> To some degree, its much safer to make readonly file systems, since any
> bugs in filesystem code won't munge the filesystem.
>
> If a filesystem is totally lost, I suppose you could restore a lowest
> common denominator (i.e. dos) and not lose any data (but maybe
> lose attributes/names).
>
> Also, it is probably easier to shove data into a new file system
> than to restore files onto an arbitrary working filesystem...
In the case of ntfs/hpfs, what you could always do (provided you had
space on a FAT partition) is restore the tar into another tar file
on a FAT partition and then use a port of tar to NT or OS/2 to restore
to the ntfs/hpfs partition.
ben