On 12/17/2010 08:22 AM, Chris O'Connell wrote: > Hey Mark, > > IMO I think there are a few important features: > 1. The backups must be mountable, allowing for file browsing and > single file restoration. May I ask about this requirement? Does it need to be mountable? You can do Browse-able with single file restoration a number of ways, but "mountable" implies a file system construct, and I'm not sure that is feasible in a reasonable amount of time.
> 2. The backup should NOT be file based, it should be image based. That is actually at direct odds with the purpose of the backup. One of the main purposes is to provide extensive information about the files being backed up and why. > 3. Encrypted backups. I want the backups to be encrypted and I want > the encryption to be self contained in the backup. This means that > you can take the backup to ANY computer with the backup software and > open the backup file by entering a password. The thing about passwords, and yes, encryption is high on my list of things that are must haves, is storage of them. If you require encryption, then you must either have the user enter the password at the time of backup, or you must store the password for use at a later date for automated backup. Would you be satisfied with storing the password on the backup machine in format which may be vulnerable, but the backup target media would never see the password and be in an AES encrypted format? > > Acronis has all of these features, but it's expensive and I don't > believe the software will run on these linux nas devices you've specified. Acronis is a good product, for what it is, but lets just say "that" market is served by products like Acronis. The market I'm targeting is much less concerned with "backup" and "restore" "disaster recovery," and far more concerned with integrity and longevity. I mean, yes, the data *MUST* be retrievable, but it wouldn't typically be used for full system backup. It is concerned more with backing up information than it is backing up systems. Does that make sense? > > --Chris > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Mark Woodward <ma...@mohawksoft.com > <mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com>> wrote: > > While I've got some free time on my hands, I decided to start work > on a > project. At its core, it is very much like a standard backup system. > What makes it different from a regular backup is what you do with the > data retrieved after the backup. I know it is a long shot or even a > fools errand to start anything so pedantic and well traveled, but > there > is a specific need that I believe has been identified, but requires > "backup" done in a specific manner. Anyway, who knows? I'm already > testing and using some of the core pieces and I have to say, I > like it. > > My target OS are Windows, MacOS, and Linux. It will run on desktops, > servers, and even some of these little NAS boxes that run Linux. > > My question for you guys is what do you *want* in a backup. We've all > used these feature laden things that are out there, 99% of which is > pointless. What are "must haves?" What is something you've wanted but > can't find? What are features that are most pointless and why? > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@blu.org <mailto:Discuss@blu.org> > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
