agree with Ralf.

I used Bacula for awhile and studying the backups I would notice that I
wanted to eliminate a few other temporary files from the backup. Making
changes to Bacula's configuration would cause it to perform a full
backup. Which meant, I now had 28Gigs twice (minus those extra temporary
files in the second backup). Whereas, BackupPC you can make these
changes and it continues with doing incrementals and full taking these
changes into account.

Plus, the web interface is great (as was mentioned as well).

Regards
Peter


----- Original message -----
From: "Ralf Gross" <Ralf-Lists AT ralfgross DOT de>
To: backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:38:13 +0200
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC vs. Bacula

[... snip ...]

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

Ralf

[... snip ...]

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