On 2013-12-12, Devin Reade <[email protected]> wrote: > OTOH, Bacula is (speaking from experience) > a solid open source product and the community edition *does* do a > form of deduplication[2] (file level, not block level), although that's > one of the few features that I've not used.
Bacula is good, but in my experience the dedupe in the current community edition is a bit awkward and limited, to me it seems best suited to backups of many nearly identical machines. On 2013-12-12, Erling Westenvik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 03:20:41PM -0700, Devin Reade wrote: >> Certainly the community edition has not suffered >> since the enterprise edition was created. > > Not anymore for the Windows client binaries. They now must be purchased. > And if one want to stay up-to-date with current versions, in the worst > case one will have to purchase a new license every third month. That > would be USD 100 a year for 1-9 Windows client machines. > > http://www.baculasystems.com/windows-binaries-for-bacula-community-users There's nothing stopping people building their own binaries and instructions are provided in Bacula source (src/win32/README.mingw) though I think many Windows shops would rather pay than do that. I haven't had major problems using the available 5.2.10 binaries on Windows machines (though the lack of v6 support is annoying) - most fixes to the community edition since 5.2.10 relate to the server side.
