Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Amanda\s+vs\s+Homegrown\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Amanda vs Homegrown (score: 1)
Author: Mike <miket AT silvercrk DOT com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:04:43 -0700
Well, I have spent a few days converting a client from a bunch of hand rolled scripts that rcp files all over the place, to amanda. All the while saying that this will be better, this is good, this i
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2005-04/msg00293.html (12,082 bytes)

2. RE: Amanda vs Homegrown (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Lidstone" <mark.lidstone AT bmtseatech.co DOT uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:44:38 +0100
Hi Mike, Generally, if you can't justify it yourself I'm wondering why you're using Amanda. But anyway, here's something that may be worth mentioning: business continuity. The backups will be used in
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2005-04/msg00296.html (15,867 bytes)

3. RE: Amanda vs Homegrown (score: 1)
Author: Mitch Collinsworth <mitch AT ccmr.cornell DOT edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:03:36 -0400 (EDT)
It would still be worth pointing out what a huge security risk the rcp command is, and if they insist on using their scripts at least get them to remove the r* accounts setup stuff and use something
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2005-04/msg00297.html (11,694 bytes)

4. RE: Amanda vs Homegrown (score: 1)
Author: "Mark Lidstone" <mark.lidstone AT bmtseatech.co DOT uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:52:51 +0100
Hi Mitch, Good point - I think I got sidetracked while I was writing that bit. The security risk I originally meant to point out is related to the r-commands accounts setup (password-less remote logi
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2005-04/msg00298.html (13,246 bytes)

5. Re: Amanda vs Homegrown (score: 1)
Author: Peter Mueller <peter.mueller.ls AT elimpex DOT com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:22:03 +0200
Hi! It would still be worth pointing out what a huge security risk the rcp command is, and if they insist on using their scripts at least get them to remove the r* accounts setup stuff and use someth
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2005-04/msg00299.html (12,389 bytes)

6. Re: Amanda vs Homegrown (score: 1)
Author: "Stefan G. Weichinger" <monitor AT oops.co DOT at>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:52:15 +0200
Hi, Peter, on Donnerstag, 21. April 2005 at 15:22 you wrote to amanda-users: I do know: http://www.amanda.org/docs/wishlist.html Yes. mkcdrec looks very interesting, unfortunately I still haven't fou
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2005-04/msg00305.html (11,904 bytes)

7. Re: Amanda vs Homegrown (score: 1)
Author: Jon LaBadie <jon AT jgcomp DOT com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:01:42 -0400
What I feel would be best is to identify the deficiencies of the current system (perceived or real) and how amanda would address them. Then you can add the icing of what other benefits amanda can pro
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2005-04/msg00312.html (12,547 bytes)

8. Re: Amanda vs Homegrown (score: 1)
Author: Chander Kant <ck AT linuxcertified DOT com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:36:25 -0700
Beyond the points already mentioned, here is another (somewhat obvious) one: Homegrown scripts imply that your customer is taking the burden of maintenance and enhancement themselves. By using Amanda
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2005-04/msg00333.html (13,248 bytes)

9. Re: Amanda vs Homegrown (score: 1)
Author: Paddy Sreenivasan <paddy.sreenivasan AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:20:31 -0700
I noticed that amanda 2.5 source tree has support for ssh between server and client using the security API described in the documentation. I'm planning to add SSL support for communication. Is anyone
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2005-04/msg00339.html (12,569 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu