On 8/31/18 9:52 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2018 15:44:53 Valeri Galtsev wrote:
I would use FreeBSD (and I do use FreeBSD for bacula, now bareos backup server and storage hosts), it has really small "footprint", and it is quite widespread.
Incidentally, I was using bacula for very long time, but recently I switched to bacula's fork: bareos. You may want to consider the differences before you finalized everything in stone.
Valeri
Hi Valeri,
Thanks for this. I haven't looked at FreeBSD since the 1990's or there abouts, but I'll give it a look.
I'm also looking at lubuntu, but was hoping that there was a lcentos. We tend to like what we're used to.
It is counter productive, and this list is wrong place to tell some alternative system is better than one or another Linux, hence this is the rant, ignore it, everyone who can:
<rant> Linux kernel is IMHO overburdened by quite a lot of stuff that doesn't belong there. Hence higher chance of bugs (and almost all bugs in kernel have security implications). Adding to that not too rare glibc security patches, all in all in my observation on average you have to reboot Linux box once every 45 days. That became a statistics after switch from 2.4 to 2.6 kernel as I recollect, and one of my friends started to use word "Lindoze" when he was looking where to migrate his servers to those days... </rant>
All in all for your hardware if I were to pick the system that is widely used and has small footprint and small demands to hardware specs, I would use FreeBSD.
I hope, this helps.
Valeri
I'd be interested in your views on the differences between bacula and Bareos. I do have one Bareos storeage device but that's just in Bacula compat mode.
Gary _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos