On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Wes Hardaker wrote: > I doubt he's unique. I constantly think to myself "wow, bacula is > really cool; but why isn't it doing that?"
So do I - and then usally find out I've set it up wrong, or that users are doing stupid things (like "chown -R /path/to/directory/") which result in files being "freshened" every day and needlessly added to incrementals. Bacula does almost everything that the cheap/free backup systems do (the only obvious thing it doesn't do is backuppc's merging of multiple machines) with a lot more reliablity and less hassle. It also does almost everything the expensive packages do (the only obvious thing here is effective daily snapshotting, allowing a full restore from incrementals without finding stray extra files appearing) What Bacula doesn't do very well is the user interface. I'd prefer to use a well engineered program which requires a bit of thought on that side than a smoothly drawn GUI program which doesn't do what it's supposed to or is so limited that minor variations requirte different programs. It works well for me and I've got ~40TB being backed up, along with ~15 small machines being imaged every night. The config file alone is 5000 lines but as long as approached in a _disciplined_ way, it remains easy to handle as each section is pretty much a carbon copy of the others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
