Mike McGrath wrote: > So I had a fire lit under my butt to get going on the backups > situation. Here's what we're currently using: > > BackupPC. Run nightly. Over SSH. Selective backups. > > I'd like to move to bacula. Now that we have moved all the storage off > of xen6 we can start to move backups there. It has more storage then > lockbox does so I'd also like to do full backups. I've installed bacula > from the review and I'll be testing with it and doing a review shortly. I'm a very happy BackupPC 3.0 user (backing up ~15 full servers daily and keeping 2 weeks worth for every one, around 700 GB of data, but due to BackupPC's pooling and compression features it all fits on a 200 GB drive). I'm just wondering why we'd use Bacula over BackupPC. In my experience BackupPC is much easier to setup and much easier to use (the web interface to BackupPC is simply brilliant). It seemed to me Bacula is more geared towards tape backups (though you can use disk with 'virtual tapes') and BackupPC is more geared towards disk-based backup (though you can frequently write archives to tape). I also found Bacula's Brief Tutorial (<http://www.bacula.org/dev-manual/Brief_Tutorial.html>) to be not so brief... Nils Breunese.
