Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) schrieb:
> Arch Willingham wrote:
> 
> > I have been looking at (and installed) both packages. I have tried  
> > to find a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each as  
> > compared to the other but found nothing very informative. Any ideas- 
> > thoughts from anyone out there?
> 
> - BackupPC is more geared towards backing up to hard drives, Bacula is  
> more geared towards backing up to tape.

You can use tape or disk volumes with bacula. I find it difficult to
use tapes with backuppc for regular backup.


> - Bacula uses a Bacula agent on each host you backup, BackupPC uses  
> stock rsync(d)/tar/smbclient on the hosts you backup.

ACK

> - BackupPC has a nice web interface that makes it very easy to restore  
> files.

There are some web-gui projects for bacula (maybe too many) and bat
(qt app). But they are add-ons and the integration is not as 
easy as with backuppc.


IMHO the biggest difference is the pooling feature backuppc offers.
There is nothing like this in bacula at the moment.

Ralf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/