cantthinkofanickname <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
