<quote who="Joshua Baker-LePain">
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 at 8:40am, Gavin Henry wrote
>
>> How does http://www.bacula.org/ stack up against Amanda?
>>
> I was actually looking at bacula recently, with an eye to moving to it.  I
> asked about it on the local LUG mailing list -- the thread starts here
> <https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/dulug/2005-March/016129.html>.  My
> issue is that I currently have 5.5TB of (90+% full) space, with a new 6TB
> server showing up on Monday.  My current library (a 2 drive, 19 slot AIT3
> model) is struggling to keep up.  I have to juggle DLEs a fair bit as
> usage patterns change.  Bacula natively supports tape spanning, as well as
> backing up ACLs.  It seemed like it was worth looking into to...
>
> However, I pretty quickly decided against moving to it.  The main reason
> is that the scheduler seems, well, primitive.  Amanda's scheduler is so
> very nice, and (in general) does such a good job that I'm spoiled.  With
> bacula, the scheduling seems very much up to the admin, and achieving the
> sort of balance amanda does so effortlessly looks to be a nightmare.
>
> I was also leery of losing the ability to recover data with nothing other
> than mt, dd, and tar.  I probably need to get over that issue even
> sticking with amanda and investigate the spanning patch (given tools like
> Knoppix with room to spare for new utilities), but it's just such a
> comforting feeling.
>
> Anyway, that's my $0.02.  I looked, but didn't even come close to leaping.
>


I am glad someone else has looked at it, I was scared it was better.

How is the Spanning Patch coming along?

-- 
Kind Regards,

Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.

T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 742001
E ghenry AT suretecsystems DOT com

Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).

http://www.suretecsystems.com/