On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 08:43:30PM +0200, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote: > Arch Willingham wrote: > > > I have been looking at (and installed) both packages. I have tried > > to find a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each as > > compared to the other but found nothing very informative. Any ideas- > > thoughts from anyone out there? > > > - BackupPC is more geared towards backing up to hard drives, Bacula is > more geared towards backing up to tape.
I definitely agree with this. At my current job we have two Bacula servers running: one is tape-based (for piles of more or less static data) and one is disk-based (for more dynamic/volatile data). Ofcourse both work in the same manner, but the disk-based system doesn't have the advantage of using hardlinks to safe storage. > - Bacula uses a Bacula agent on each host you backup, BackupPC uses > stock rsync(d)/tar/smbclient on the hosts you backup. I do not really consider this an advantage. Either way you have to install and configure a client: rsync or bacula-fd. > - BackupPC has a nice web interface that makes it very easy to restore > files. That's true. Bacula requires the administrator to restore data. I consider Bacula a very mature backup solution, but it has a different target audience. Maarten
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/