Andrew, 

Here are the methods currently available, that I know of, and my opinions on
them: 

1. SAMBA via smbclient: easiest to set up, but direct restores are tricky;
better to restore to the *nix box running smbclient and then move the files
back yourself. Works best when you just backup critical data directories.
This is what I'm currently using for my Windows boxen.

2. SAMBA via smbmount: looks like a regular tar to AMANDA, but you have to
keep the mount connected, and I'm not sure it will handle spaces in
filenames as well. I never got this working the way I wanted, but that was
mostly my lack of SAMBA knowledge.

3. NFS: There is an NFS server implementation available from Microsoft as
part of "Unix Services for Windows". In theory, you could NFS mount and
backup with tar. It appears that most people use SAMBA instead of sending
more money to Redmond.

4. Amanda-Win32 client: I looked at this and stopped looking when I got to
the part where it doesn't work with amcheck. Maybe they've fixed that since
spring '02, I haven't had time to keep up with it, but since my backups run
overnight, I need amcheck to let me know all is well before I go home.

5. Amanda Client under Cygwin: A very recent development on the
amanda-hackers list (Many thanks to Doug and Joshua) is a patch for
compiling the real AMANDA source under Cygwin. I've gotten it working with
some kludginess on one server, and all of the problems I'm having seem to be
coming from my lack of understanding of Cygwin. This is under active
development and looks very promising. If you're ok with installing Cygwin on
your Windows machines, I'd give this a try.

Any other thoughts? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ahall@;secureworks.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Thoughts on Win32
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> I am about to attempt to archive my Win32 hosts with amanda.  I was
> wondering what the list users experience has been with samba 
> and/or the
> Win32 amanda client.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Andrew
> 

Reply via email to