Mike McGrath wrote: > We're starting to get into backup needs that will include a lot of data > thats not redundant so backuppc's pooling won't really benefit us that > much. Ok, fair enough. I thought there was talk of having static content on multiple servers, that's where BackupPC's pooling feature could come in pretty handy, but I have no idea about what amounts of data we're talking. > Hopefully we'll be using both tape and disk backups. Once our new disk > tray gets in we'll have to prepare to backup a couple TB of Binary > RPMs. Some of our backups will be going to disk, some will be going to > tape. Additionally it seems that bacula is more efficient at backing > things up. Efficient in term of what precisely? And what backend are we using with BackupPC right now? Nils Breunese.
