<quote who="Joshua Baker-LePain"> > On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 at 8:40am, Gavin Henry wrote > >> How does http://www.bacula.org/ stack up against Amanda? >> > I was actually looking at bacula recently, with an eye to moving to it. I > asked about it on the local LUG mailing list -- the thread starts here > <https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/dulug/2005-March/016129.html>. My > issue is that I currently have 5.5TB of (90+% full) space, with a new 6TB > server showing up on Monday. My current library (a 2 drive, 19 slot AIT3 > model) is struggling to keep up. I have to juggle DLEs a fair bit as > usage patterns change. Bacula natively supports tape spanning, as well as > backing up ACLs. It seemed like it was worth looking into to... > > However, I pretty quickly decided against moving to it. The main reason > is that the scheduler seems, well, primitive. Amanda's scheduler is so > very nice, and (in general) does such a good job that I'm spoiled. With > bacula, the scheduling seems very much up to the admin, and achieving the > sort of balance amanda does so effortlessly looks to be a nightmare. > > I was also leery of losing the ability to recover data with nothing other > than mt, dd, and tar. I probably need to get over that issue even > sticking with amanda and investigate the spanning patch (given tools like > Knoppix with room to spare for new utilities), but it's just such a > comforting feeling. > > Anyway, that's my $0.02. I looked, but didn't even come close to leaping. >
I am glad someone else has looked at it, I was scared it was better. How is the Spanning Patch coming along? -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1224 279484 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/
