On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 05:36:32PM +0300, Evren Yurtesen wrote: > Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 12:58:30PM +0300, Evren Yurtesen wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Is there a known continuous backup solution similar to r1soft backup >>> for FreeBSD? I googled a lot but couldnt find anything. >>> >>> R1soft says they need help to develop FreeBSD support in their >>> product. Do you know anybody who can help r1soft on this issue? >>> >>> Please see: http://forum.r1soft.com/showpost.php?p=3414&postcount=9 >> >> Would the GEOM gate class handle this? See ggatec(8) and ggated(8). >> > > I am not saying it is impossible. They just need somebody to put them to > right track I guess. I personally cant do that. It would be nice if > somebody who has knowledge in this area contacts r1soft. At the very > least r1soft seems to be willing to communicate on this issue.
First and foremost, the URL you gave is terse and out of context. Let people read the entire thread: http://forum.r1soft.com/showthread.php?p=3414 So let me throw around some ideas. First and foremost, David appears to be saying "We'll take FreeBSD seriously if we can get proper documentation, and it needs to be thorough, that explains how to interface with devices on a block level so we can perform block-level backups and write our software appropriately". AFAIK we don't have any documentation that outlines that in a clear, concise manner. With regards to "providing protocol documentation and letting the open-source community write the software", R1Soft is generally right. Time and resources are the biggest problem with open-source; do not think for a moment that just because millions of users can look at source code means they understand it, or even know how to write it, or will even *want* to. The majority do/will not. That said, I'd like to know exactly how "low-level" R1Soft's software truly is. dump(8), AFAIK, is "block-level" -- and that's a userland program. Does R1Soft's software *truly* require kernel-land? I have more to say on that issue (not against R1Soft, but speaking with regards to the current state of FreeBSD's developer count) if it truly does. I'm somewhat surprised that their software focuses on Linux and Windows and not Solaris and Linux, especially given that they're interested in "dedicated server markets". Solaris is always the first OS that comes to my mind when talking about hardcore server operating systems. > Continuous backups as well as bare-metal-restore seem to be a key > feature for many hosters. Regarding continuous backups: the GEOM gate class could be used for this. Meaning, I think it could be used as an alternate to R1Soft's software. Regarding bare-metal restoration I'm not aware of how to do that under FreeBSD, Linux, or even Solaris "with ease". In most cases, companies develop their own PXE-booting environments which wipe the disks and reinstall + restore data as they see fit. There is no "standard". > FreeBSD is loosing users because of this issue. Why does the "number of FreeBSD users" matter? Quantity does not necessarily represent quality. I'm sorry for sounding anti-FreeBSD, but the reality is that people should use whatever solutions work best for them -- if that's using Windows, Solaris, or Linux, great! Remember that open-source is about choice: and choice means supporting the possibility that someone chooses something else. Blind one-sided advocacy is very damaging to the open-source model and concept. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"