Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:37:17 -0500 From: Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.2 and Bacula To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Message-ID: 490C85BD.1060304@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Les wrote:
Tronn Wærdahl wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a Samba server on CentOS 5.2 that I would like to and some backup service to, I have been trying to install Bacula, because I want to backup MS machines too, and there is a web GUI. But when searching around i google I get a bit confused. about what packages I need.
Has anyone got bacula running on Centos or maybe guide in the right direction.
You might want to look at backkuppc as an alternative if you are mostly backing up to disk and accessing it online. The linking and compression scheme it uses will keep a larger history in less space.
Hi,
Between Bacula and Backuppc, based on list users experience, which is better to use? I intend to backup both Windows and Linux server. Can I use this to backup my linux mail server with Zimbra services shutdown? Can I use this to backup windows server machine without using Samba or it is the only way to go. I intend to read manual of these two when I got my machine to test, for a while maybe I can get some insight from those who have already experience using these tools.
Thanks,
junji aisalen.wordpress.com Linux Registered User #253162 CentOS User
Get your preferred Email name! Now you can @ymail.com and @rocketmail.com. http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/aa/
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 21:26, Jun Salen nokijun@yahoo.com wrote:
Between Bacula and Backuppc, based on list users experience, which is better to use? I intend to backup both Windows and Linux server. Can I use this to backup my linux mail server with Zimbra services shutdown? Can I use this to backup windows server machine without using Samba or it is the only way to go. I intend to read manual of these two when I got my machine to test, for a while maybe I can get some insight from those who have already experience using these tools.
You can do all that with both tools.
Bacula is tape oriented, so if you're backing up to tape it's going to be the tool for you. It also supports backing up to disk, but it backs up to disk as if it was a tape (a set of tapes, actually) which is kind of awkward. In my opinion, Bacula's user interface is kind of weird too.
Backuppc backs up to disk only, but it has a great advantage that it finds duplicate files and uses hardlinks to reduce storage usage, so it can usually back up much more data than Bacula in the same space. Another advantage of Backuppc is that it backs up using rsync or tar over ssh or smbtar for Windows, so in general you don't need to install an agent on the client machines. It's web interface is also very good.
So, you should choose mainly based on the media you're using for backups.
IMHO, if you still use tapes, forget the past and move to the future of disk-based backups, and adopt Backuppc as your tool.
HTH, Filipe
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
IMHO, if you still use tapes, forget the past and move to the future of disk-based backups, and adopt Backuppc as your tool.
There are trade-offs here. Tapes are generally regarded as having a longer shelf life than disks, and they're less susceptible to physical damage during transport -- both important if off-site backups are part of your strategy.
Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
IMHO, if you still use tapes, forget the past and move to the future of disk-based backups, and adopt Backuppc as your tool.
There are trade-offs here. Tapes are generally regarded as having a longer shelf life than disks, and they're less susceptible to physical damage during transport -- both important if off-site backups are part of your strategy.
On the other hand, given bandwidth suitable for keeping up with changes via rsync, backuppc is perfectly capable of maintaining offsite backups over a vpn without transporting anything. And for life span you can use raid mirrors and replace a drive every couple of years. Also, backuppc can generate a tar imaage that you can write to other media for archival storage and the ability to restore without the application running - it isn't particularly handy but it is possible.
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:13, Paul Heinlein heinlein@madboa.com wrote:
IMHO, if you still use tapes, forget the past and move to the future of disk-based backups, and adopt Backuppc as your tool.
There are trade-offs here. Tapes are generally regarded as having a longer shelf life than disks, and they're less susceptible to physical damage during transport -- both important if off-site backups are part of your strategy.
Yes, tape for offsite copies are fine, but these days I don't see any reason why to back up directly to tape instead of staging to disk first.
If you do backups to disk with BackupPC, you can use "dump" to efficiently create an image of that filesystem to tape, and then send that tape offsite.
Or, as another poster already mentioned, you can do your offsite through the network by using a remote BackupPC server or using rsync to keep a copy of your local backups on a remote machine.
Filipe
-
Filipe Brandenburger -
Jun Salen -
Les Mikesell -
Paul Heinlein