On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 08:43:30PM +0200, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:

> 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.

I definitely agree with this. At my current job we have two Bacula
servers running: one is tape-based (for piles of more or less static
data) and one is disk-based (for more dynamic/volatile data). Ofcourse
both work in the same manner, but the disk-based system doesn't have the
advantage of using hardlinks to safe storage.

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

I do not really consider this an advantage. Either way you have to
install and configure a client: rsync or bacula-fd.

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

That's true. Bacula requires the administrator to restore data.

I consider Bacula a very mature backup solution, but it has a different
target audience.

Maarten

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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