> From: Alvin Starr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Francisco Jose Montilla wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > First, I apologize for the "little" offtopic. But I, like most of
> > you (if not you weren't on this list :) care for the redundancy of my
> > important data.
> >
First, I'm cross-posting to linux-tape where it is a "little"
more-on-topic.
I also want to establish the point of view from which I'm assessing your
points so no one thinks I'm taking cheap shots at advertising. I'm a
software engineer at Microlite Corporation (i.e. I'm part of the friendly
team of friendly developers who bring the following product to you today
<G>). I know that Tim Jones is usually active on linux-tape, so that's a
part of the reason I'm cross-posting there... He'll be able to address your
points from BRU's product's point-of-view much better than I could.
> > I've been trying (commercial and not-commercial) different backup
> > systems for a while, and came across this conclusions, please let me
know
> > if you disagree:
> >
> > - Backup software must be simple, efficient and reliable.
> > - GUIs use to introduce at least 80% of the bugs software has.
> A GUI is usefull. It should only be an adjunct to the real program
though.
> The Idea of a GUI sould be to make what you do 90% of the time easy.
>
> > - The simpler the software, the lesser chances to have problems,
> > eg. that f*!?ing lib that make trouble among others you're suffering
> > right now, (you're restoring, arent you?) now that i _have_ to restore
> > "nooow!" -helps your boss "aaaargh!" -histerize your users...
> Simple reliable modular design is allways better but sometimes not
> achieveable.
>
I would have to agree with Alvin here. Yes, backup software should be
simple. This is not a complex process. The tree-trunk of backup software
should be that -- strong, secure, and simple. Anything else should be
added onto that, and can be. Our product (I say that because we sell one
product -- our boot recovery, backup software, autochanger support, et al.
are all included as a part of our product... i.e. not sold separately) is
several programs which swarm around our actual backup software which uses a
superset of the tar format (for things like 170 character names and
file-by-file compression) and has been around for over 10 years and has
always been a UNIX product.
Our SCSI control program, Fast File Restore (SCSI fast seek the tape --
with a phat algorithm for anyone who's interested <G>), etc are all just
separate programs that don't interfere with the reliable backup procedure
implemented by the 'edge' binary.
> > So I assume:
> >
> > - Data (that minds) storage is centralized. No need to work
> > cross-platform on backup; the other platforms have worked already with
the
> > server to store data on it. So let the server to backup its data
without
> > introducing the complexity and chances to problems that streaming data
> > across networks may introduce.
>
> This will not allways work. If you have several servers to backup you may
> want to a central backup server.
>
> > - If not, better use wide open, extensively tested
> > software/protocols (eg. samba) to work with other platforms.
> >
> > In fact, keep at least backup schemes simple.
> >
> > That guides me to use simple software: tar, find, cpio, afio,
> > mt, dump... etc.
>
> tar,find,cpio... are often not up to the job of backing up large systems.
> I have written a package to provide incremental bakup for a 100TByte
> application. It was not easy and I think I would approach the problem
> differently if I were to do it again. But it can be done.
>
The centralization of data and lack of cross-platform is really a personal
choice. It's not a big deal for backup software to work cross-platform or
to go over a network, although I would agree that keeping simple protocols
is usually a good idea (although not always possible). In our case, it is,
and we allow you to choose the protocol (rsh, ssh, whatever).
I definitely agree that programs such as tar work nicely in very simple
generic applications, but if you're really concerned about your data, I
would never touch 'em. You need software that can verify the backup, that
can compress on a per-file basis (tar doesn't do it, and I don't think gnu
tar does either -- don't quote me on gnu tar), you might have trouble with
tar for long filenames.
> There are a number of OpenSource and commercial backup packages availble.
There certainly are. If I may suggest, get as many evaluation copies as
possible, check web sites etc. Also, feel free to e-mail me personally for
any questions on our software. I'll assume anyone posting here (from
commercial companies at least) won't totally plug the full set of their
products, but rather try to address what was brought up. There are many
features from many companies that may be extremely useful that you'll want
to look into.
Brian Geisel
Software Engineer
Microlite Corporation -- http://www.microlite.com
Demo copies available at: ftp://ftp.microlite.com/demos
