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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.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@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
