Ralf Gross wrote:

> 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.

And I found it somewhat cumbersome to use hard drives with Bacula. So  
that's why I said that.

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

Ah yeah, forgot to mention that. Compression and pooling lets me store  
1.8 TB worth of backups in just over 300 GB of disk space. Gotta love  
that. If your hosts all have the same OS and everything the ratio is  
probably even more spectacular.

Nils.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/