cantthinkofanickname <backuppc-forum AT backupcentral DOT com> wrote on 
12/20/2008 04:15:35 AM:

> But if I do that do I now have to go round to every Windows PC I 
> need to backup and install something. I thought the idea of SMB was 
> to avoid that stage. Maybe I'm wrong here?
> 
> Any particular reason that I should abandon SMB?

Myriads of reasons.  First, you have a *lot* of layers between the raw 
files on both systems:  there's the Server service on the Windows side 
that abstracts the representation of the files as it provides them via 
SMB;  there's the Samba code on doing the same on the UNIX side.  That 
tends to create problems in subtle ways.

Second, there's the performance side.  Even across a local network, you 
transfer less data more efficiently if you use rsync to transfer the data 
rather than SMB.

And while you do have to "install" something on the Windows side, it is 
*exrememly* limited.  You need rsync.exe, cygwin1.dll and two simple 
text-based configuration files.  You copy them into a directory, set up a 
Scheduled Task to run them when the server starts up and away you go. Give 
the *very* real advantages of rsync over SMB, copying (not installing) a 
couple of files and creating a Scheduled Task ist *not* a large barrier to 
entry.

Tim Massey


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/