Re: tar vs. ghost

[awilliam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> > Am I just hopping on the clue bus with this one? Why wouldn't it work? 
Why
> > wouldn't I want to do this? I can see a conflict with SID's on NT 
boxes,
> > but for Win9x or Linux, why not use this Linux driven "ghost" (tar)? 
What
> > are others doing out there for this scenario? I apologize if this is 
an
> > elementary type of question, but it can be challenging to think 
outside the
> > box (Linux!) when a lot of your everyday work is confined to working 
with
> > Windows. It makes me think that the biggest hurdle Linux has to 
overcome is
> > changing the way people think about finding a solution. (i.e.-don't 
default
> > to M$!)

> Tar works great for coping Linux ext2 partitions.
> Not so good on windoze fat16/fat32 partitions as
> some attributes seem to get lost.
> Be careful with tar's options.
> "p" is very important to preserve permissions.
> Otherwise you get device files and tmp directories
> without correct permissions, and all non-root users
> have really weird problems.
> "l"  (lowercase L) is also useful not to cross mount
> points to other partitions when tar'ing the system.
> Especially /proc !!!

I use dd to replicate partitions.  Create  a partition of X blocks and 
use dd if=imagefile of=/dev/hda2 bs=512, to put the filesystem onto 
it.  Create your image from an unmounted filesystem, or it will want 
to fsck every time.