On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 10:38:09AM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 at 10:25am, James B. Byrne wrote
>
> > We are presently looking into alternative backup strategies for our
> > networked servers and are considering Bacula. Does anyone have any
> > opinions on this application, good and bad, to share? Further, is
> > there a CentOS4 specific rpm build available for this in a yum
> > repository (I note that CentOS4 tags have been added to the Bacula
> > source tree)?
>
> I'm a long time amanda user, so I may be a bit biased. I looked into
> bacula a month or so ago for 2 reasons -- 1) tape spanning support (which
> amanda has only in experimental patches, and 2) native ACL support (amanda
> uses native tools like tar or dump to actually get the bits off the disk,
> so ACL support is up to them). I decided against bacula pretty quickly,
> though, because the scheduling facilities of it are, well, non-existent.
> You have to make all the scheduling decisions yourself.
I've also used amanda in the past, and looked into bacula
for the tape spanning support as well. However, I was not
turned off by having to setup the schedules manually, and
have been using bacula for several months to backup ~15TB.
Aside from the tape spanning support (which I think is
maturing in amanda), I've found having the catalog in a true
database to be a great feature, particularly when a user
inevitably request files (the names of which they only
vaguely remember) be restored.
Cheers,
Bryan Cardillo
Penn Bioinformatics Core
University of Pennsylvania
