Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
--On Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:43 PM +0200 Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Bacula uses a Bacula agent on each host you backup, BackupPC uses stock rsync(d)/tar/smbclient on the hosts you backup. This is a case where Bacula has an advantage. (The only one I can identify.) Because the client is native, it can store the native metadata (eg. Windows ACLs) more completely. - 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=100url=/ ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
This is a case where Bacula has an advantage. (The only one I can identify.) Because the client is native, it can store the native metadata (eg. Windows ACLs) more completely. The Bacula client also has native VSS support for backing up open files on Windows XP/2003. Mike - 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=100url=/___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
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=100url=/___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
Maarten te Paske wrote: - 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. Most unix-like systems already have sshd, rsync and tar installed and windows can use the admin file shares for clientless backup. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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=100url=/ ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 07:38:03AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: Maarten te Paske wrote: I do not really consider this an advantage. Either way you have to install and configure a client: rsync or bacula-fd. Most unix-like systems already have sshd, rsync and tar installed and windows can use the admin file shares for clientless backup. Even if you have rsync installed (which I don't install by default on any server installation) you need client side configuration. At least, I do the following on each BackupPC client: - Create a local user that can run rsync via sudo - Restrict the commands that can be run to 'sudo rsync' in the authorized_keys file. - Restrict SSH connections to the hostname of the BackupPC server in the authorized_keys file. So my point is, with both solutions it requires some work. Unless you use admin file shares for clientless backup, but I'm not quite sure what you mean with that. 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=100url=/___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
Maarten te Paske wrote: I do not really consider this an advantage. Either way you have to install and configure a client: rsync or bacula-fd. Most unix-like systems already have sshd, rsync and tar installed and windows can use the admin file shares for clientless backup. Even if you have rsync installed (which I don't install by default on any server installation) you need client side configuration. At least, I do the following on each BackupPC client: - Create a local user that can run rsync via sudo - Restrict the commands that can be run to 'sudo rsync' in the authorized_keys file. - Restrict SSH connections to the hostname of the BackupPC server in the authorized_keys file. I normally have sshd/rsync configured for content management on all machines anyway, and the only extra configuration is to add the authorized key for backuppc, which you can do through a script that prompts for the password for the connection that installs the key. So my point is, with both solutions it requires some work. Unless you use admin file shares for clientless backup, but I'm not quite sure what you mean with that. Windows always exports hidden file shares for each drive (C$, D$, etc.) that you can access from a login with administrator or backup user rights. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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=100url=/ ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
agree with Ralf. I used Bacula for awhile and studying the backups I would notice that I wanted to eliminate a few other temporary files from the backup. Making changes to Bacula's configuration would cause it to perform a full backup. Which meant, I now had 28Gigs twice (minus those extra temporary files in the second backup). Whereas, BackupPC you can make these changes and it continues with doing incrementals and full taking these changes into account. Plus, the web interface is great (as was mentioned as well). Regards Peter - Original message - From: Ralf Gross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:38:13 +0200 Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula [... snip ...] IMHO the biggest difference is the pooling feature backuppc offers. There is nothing like this in bacula at the moment. Ralf [... snip ...] - 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=100url=/ ___ 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/
[BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
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? Thanks, Arch - 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=100url=/___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) schrieb: 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. You can use tape or disk volumes with bacula. I find it difficult to use tapes with backuppc for regular backup. - Bacula uses a Bacula agent on each host you backup, BackupPC uses stock rsync(d)/tar/smbclient on the hosts you backup. ACK - BackupPC has a nice web interface that makes it very easy to restore files. There are some web-gui projects for bacula (maybe too many) and bat (qt app). But they are add-ons and the integration is not as easy as with backuppc. IMHO the biggest difference is the pooling feature backuppc offers. There is nothing like this in bacula at the moment. Ralf - 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=100url=/ ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula
Ralf Gross wrote: Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) schrieb: 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. You can use tape or disk volumes with bacula. I find it difficult to use tapes with backuppc for regular backup. And I found it somewhat cumbersome to use hard drives with Bacula. So that's why I said that. IMHO the biggest difference is the pooling feature backuppc offers. There is nothing like this in bacula at the moment. Ah yeah, forgot to mention that. Compression and pooling lets me store 1.8 TB worth of backups in just over 300 GB of disk space. Gotta love that. If your hosts all have the same OS and everything the ratio is probably even more spectacular. Nils. - 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=100url=/ ___ 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/
