Hey there, what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
Thanks in advance
Amanda (from base CentOS) -> USB removable disk -> firesafe.
Backups on or by the computer might protect you from disk failures, but are useless in case of fire or theft.
On 27/01/2019 11:56, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Hey there, what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
Thanks in advance _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Amanda (from base CentOS) -> USB removable disk -> firesafe.
Backups on or by the computer might protect you from disk failures, but are useless in case of fire or theft.
Good point. The backup strategy is at least as important as the tool used.
Using Bacula, I'm doing daily backups of critical data (which is not everything, but i.e. my business data) to an encrypted disk on an offsite server 400km from here over the internet.
I'm also still doing backups to external physical media, but on a much looser schedule since it's always some effort to bring them to my offsite safe. The best backup of your work is pretty useless when it's two months old.
--On Sunday, January 27, 2019 12:22 PM +0000 J Martin Rushton via CentOS centos@centos.org wrote:
Backups on or by the computer might protect you from disk failures, but are useless in case of fire or theft.
With ransomware and rarely-used files, it's also important to have generations of backups, in case an infection clobbers your recent backups of files before you detect the infection.
On 27/01/2019 16:59, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Sunday, January 27, 2019 12:22 PM +0000 J Martin Rushton via CentOS centos@centos.org wrote:
Backups on or by the computer might protect you from disk failures, but are useless in case of fire or theft.
With ransomware and rarely-used files, it's also important to have generations of backups, in case an infection clobbers your recent backups of files before you detect the infection.
Yes, and not on the same disk! I have three USB disks, each of which is capable of holding half a dozen backups. Disk 1 has slots 11-19, disk 2 21-29 and disk 3 31-39. Backups are done in theory to 11, 21, 31, 12, 22, 32 ..., though in practice I may dump extra backups on the same disk if I'm doing configuration or upgrade work.
Hi Alessandro,
what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
the same as on most other operating systems: Bareos.
Bareos has some learning curve, but it's free, it's extremely reliable and flexible. I've been using it for years, after switching from its parent Bacula, which I've been using for years before that, and it has not failed me once when I needed it.
Cheers,
Peter.
Il 27/01/19 13:32, Peter Eckel ha scritto:
Hi Alessandro,
what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
the same as on most other operating systems: Bareos.
Bareos has some learning curve, but it's free, it's extremely reliable and flexible. I've been using it for years, after switching from its parent Bacula, which I've been using for years before that, and it has not failed me once when I needed it.
Cheers,
Peter.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi Peter, thank you for you answer.
What if I will use bareos I will never get problem between version like happening today with bacula?
I could use newer bareos client on older bareos director?
Thanks in advance
Hi Alessandro,
What if I will use bareos I will never get problem between version like happening today with bacula?
difficult to say - I never ran into any upgrade issues with Bareos, but neither with Bacula while I was still using it.
I could use newer bareos client on older bareos director?
I always do it the other way around, i.e. upgrade the director/file daemon and then the clients as time suits. No problems with that so far.
Do you happen to be at FOSDEM? The Bareos team is going to be there, as usual: http://www.bareos.org/en/news/bareos-fosdem-19.html
Cheers,
Peter.
On 1/27/19 8:14 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
Hi Alessandro,
What if I will use bareos I will never get problem between version like happening today with bacula?
difficult to say - I never ran into any upgrade issues with Bareos, but neither with Bacula while I was still using it.
I could use newer bareos client on older bareos director?
I always do it the other way around, i.e. upgrade the director/file daemon
you mean, director and STORAGE daemon, right? File daemon _IS_ a client...
Valeri
and then the clients as time suits. No problems with that so far.
Do you happen to be at FOSDEM? The Bareos team is going to be there, as usual: http://www.bareos.org/en/news/bareos-fosdem-19.html
Cheers,
Peter.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 1/27/19 9:04 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
Hi Valeri,
you mean, director and STORAGE daemon, right? File daemon _IS_ a client...
yep. I noticed when klicking on 'send', as usual :-)
And my apologies about sending it: I noticed you already corrected yourself when I hit "send" button. I should change to reading my mail beginning from latest to older ;-)
Valeri
Cheers,
Peter.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 1/27/19 6:32 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
Hi Alessandro,
what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
the same as on most other operating systems: Bareos.
+1
Valeri
Bareos has some learning curve, but it's free, it's extremely reliable and flexible. I've been using it for years, after switching from its parent Bacula, which I've been using for years before that, and it has not failed me once when I needed it.
Cheers,
Peter.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi,
As all ours *nix systems: « rsnapshot ».
It’s very simple, based on rsync and assume historical backup on a real Unix FS. So, restauration is as simple then backup.
Le 27 janv. 2019 à 12:56, Alessandro Baggi alessandro.baggi@gmail.com a écrit :
Hey there, what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
Thanks in advance _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-- Pierre Malard
«La France n'est pas schismatique, elle est révolutionnaire» Jean Jaures - 1905 (`.-,') .-' ; _.-' , `,- _ _.-' .' /._ .' ` _.-. / ,'._;) ( . )-| ( )`,_ ,'_,' _;) ('_ _,'.' (___,)) πr `-:;.-'
perl -e '$_=q#: 3|\ 5_,3-3,2_: 3/,`.'"'"'`'"'"' 5-. ;-;;,_: |,A- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'"'"'-'"'"': '"'"'-3'"'"'2(_/--'"'"' `-'"'"'_): 24πr::#;y#:#\n#;s#(\D)(\d+)#$1x$2#ge;print' - --> Ce message n’engage que son auteur <--
Von meinem iPad gesendet
Am 27.01.2019 um 15:50 schrieb Pierre Malard plm@teledetection.fr:
Hi,
As all ours *nix systems: « rsnapshot ».
It’s very simple, based on rsync and assume historical backup on a real Unix FS. So, restauration is as simple then backup.
+1 rsnaphot is a simple but perfect working tool
Ralf
rsync to a remote site and then BackupPC. (Use the BackupPC version 4 in Software Collections.)
Am 27.01.2019 um 12:56 schrieb Alessandro Baggi alessandro.baggi@gmail.com:
Hey there, what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
Urbackup is a great tool too.
Am 27.01.2019 um 12:56 schrieb Alessandro Baggi alessandro.baggi@gmail.com:
Hey there, what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
Check out Restic: restic.net
We use an Rsync script: https://github.com/Nextpertise/autorsyncbackup
On 27/01/2019, 17:17, "CentOS on behalf of Leo R. Lundgren" <centos-bounces@centos.org on behalf of leo@finalresort.org> wrote:
Am 27.01.2019 um 12:56 schrieb Alessandro Baggi alessandro.baggi@gmail.com:
> Hey there, > what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
Check out Restic: restic.net _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sunday 27 January 2019, Alessandro Baggi alessandro.baggi@gmail.com wrote:
what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
rdiff-backup
My primary backups are done with dar, http://dar.linux.free.fr/
I also periodically do backups in other formats such as rsync and tar for redundancy.
Nataraj
Il 28/01/19 04:56, Nataraj ha scritto:
My primary backups are done with dar, http://dar.linux.free.fr/
I also periodically do backups in other formats such as rsync and tar for redundancy.
Nataraj
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Why many users skip bacula? It is powerfull and very stable. It is very difficult to setup but if you know how it works it is simple.
Why do you not use bacula as backup solution?
Thanks in advance.
Hi Alessandro,
Why many users skip bacula? It is powerfull and very stable. It is very difficult to setup but if you know how it works it is simple.
I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos.
There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste. Obviously I wasn't alone with this, because roughly at that time Bareos was forked from Bacula.
http://www.admin-magazine.com/Archive/2013/17/New-features-in-the-Bareos-Bacula-fork
Essentially, Bareos is an improved (at least IMHO) fork of Bacula, and unlike Bacuka it's fully open source.
Cheers,
Peter.
Am 28.01.2019 um 10:50 schrieb Peter Eckel lists@eckel-edv.de:
Hi Alessandro,
Why many users skip bacula? It is powerfull and very stable. It is very difficult to setup but if you know how it works it is simple.
IMHO - as Kern (Bacula lead developer) is pushing Bacula forward I dont understand this too. It must be a misinformation about the current status of the project itself and competitors interests (Bareos).
I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos.
There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste.
Inactive? Every 2 months a release (average):
https://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/bacula-announce/
Obviously I wasn't alone with this, because roughly at that time Bareos was forked from Bacula.
http://www.admin-magazine.com/Archive/2013/17/New-features-in-the-Bareos-Bacula-fork
Essentially, Bareos is an improved (at least IMHO) fork of Bacula, and unlike Bacuka it's fully open source.
IIRC Bacula is also open source software. Remember RHEL binaries are not free available ... if you are referring to precompiled MS Windows binaries of Bacula).
BTW Bacula is included in CentOS/RHEL albeit in an older version. This applies also for example to PHP and has the cause in the enterprise strategy of the distribution. So don't blame the wrong one.
Maybe a good reason to start a Backup SIG which provides a repository with current bacula packages?
-- LF
On Monday 28 January 2019 12:23:25 Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:
Am 28.01.2019 um 10:50 schrieb Peter Eckel lists@eckel-edv.de:
I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos.
There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste.
Inactive? Every 2 months a release (average):
I am a long time user of Bacula (Fedora 9) but I must admit that I do not keep up with versions. (I'm still running the F9 Bacula 5.2 director).
What real world benefits would I get from upgrading to the current Bacula version? What problems woudl I have? What are the arguments for/against Bareos?
My storage servers range from F9 to C7 and all work fine. I'm still using the old WinBacula clients even with the new Win10 boxes.
On 1/28/2019 4:23 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:
I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos.
There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste.
Inactive? Every 2 months a release (average):
BackupPC suffered from the same issue. V3 is still what's available in the default repository. Since then, the dev has resumed active work and released v4, a major upgrade, and actively fixes bugs.
https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc
Yum repo for v4:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/hobbes1069/BackupPC/
Hi Leon,
IMHO - as Kern (Bacula lead developer) is pushing Bacula forward I dont understand this too. It must be a misinformation about the current status of the project itself and competitors interests (Bareos).
the fork of Bacula happened in 2013, IIRC. Things may have changed since then, but I did not bother to switch back. It's a good thing, however, that there was a change.
The fact that I can't find any recent RPMs anymore is definitely nothing that makes switching back an attractive option :-)
IIRC Bacula is also open source software. Remember RHEL binaries are not free available ... if you are referring to precompiled MS Windows binaries of Bacula).
In fact Bacula is open core, i.e. there is an enterprise version that has additional functionality not contained in the community edition. It's only fair, however, to note that there is also a downside to Bareos' concept - binary distributions are released less frequently to the community while enterprise service subscribers receive more frequent binary updates.
BTW Bacula is included in CentOS/RHEL albeit in an older version. This applies also for example to PHP and has the cause in the enterprise strategy of the distribution. So don't blame the wrong one.
I'm not blaming anyone at all - as a user of CentOS/RHEL I know about the drawbacks of a stable enterprise vs. bleeding edge release strategy.
Maybe a good reason to start a Backup SIG which provides a repository with current bacula packages?
Hm ... there used to be a repository maintained by some company associated with Bacula, but I can't find it anymore - so it seems that starting a SIG taking care of that would be a good idea.
Cheers,
Peter.
On 1/28/19 6:23 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:
Am 28.01.2019 um 10:50 schrieb Peter Eckel lists@eckel-edv.de:
Hi Alessandro,
Why many users skip bacula? It is powerfull and very stable. It is very difficult to setup but if you know how it works it is simple.
IMHO - as Kern (Bacula lead developer) is pushing Bacula forward I dont understand this too. It must be a misinformation about the current status of the project itself and competitors interests (Bareos).
I used Bacula before I switched to Bareos.
There was a point, however, when the open source release of Bacula became, to put it mildly, a bit too inactive for my taste.
Inactive? Every 2 months a release (average):
No rant intended... I believe, at some point there were no binary client for Windows system released for latest (at that point) bacula release. One could get that if one was a paid customer though, which my Department(s) WAS. That put _me_ off of upgrades to the server, and ultimately affected decision to switch over to bareos. (the very first thing I noticed: "status director" command in console in bareos was executed very fast compared my old bacula server. But that could be just me).
That said, I want to express gratitude bacula team for the great job they were doing which really made my backup for two departments I work for just a wonder. Several times I had to do restore, and that saved my people who accidentally deleted some important stuff (whole version control place for some important software project with all history, releases, branches was one of them).
https://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/bacula-announce/
Obviously I wasn't alone with this, because roughly at that time Bareos was forked from Bacula.
http://www.admin-magazine.com/Archive/2013/17/New-features-in-the-Bareos-Bacula-fork
Essentially, Bareos is an improved (at least IMHO) fork of Bacula, and unlike Bacuka it's fully open source.
IIRC Bacula is also open source software. Remember RHEL binaries are not free available ... if you are referring to precompiled MS Windows binaries of Bacula).
BTW Bacula is included in CentOS/RHEL albeit in an older version. This applies also for example to PHP and has the cause in the enterprise strategy of the distribution. So don't blame the wrong one.
In this place I will just second what you said.
Valeri
Maybe a good reason to start a Backup SIG which provides a repository with current bacula packages?
-- LF
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 1/28/19 4:23 AM, Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:
IMHO - as Kern (Bacula lead developer) is pushing Bacula forward I dont understand this too. It must be a misinformation about the current status of the project itself and competitors interests (Bareos).
There's probably going to be a lot of misinformation where bareos is concerned. The developers forked that product claiming that when they signed license assignments they didn't know that this could or would allow Bacula to begin a dual-license release in which some features were added to a separate proprietary release. Bacula's developers claim that the fork included code that was not licensed to them. Their lawsuit was settled with undisclosed terms. Given what information is available publicly, I am inclined to believe that the fork was in the wrong, but users are often more concerned with protecting people that they like than they are in license compliance.
Hi Gordon,
There's probably going to be a lot of misinformation where bareos is concerned. The developers forked that product claiming that when they signed license assignments they didn't know that this could or would allow Bacula to begin a dual-license release in which some features were added to a separate proprietary release. Bacula's developers claim that the fork included code that was not licensed to them. Their lawsuit was settled with undisclosed terms. Given what information is available publicly, I am inclined to believe that the fork was in the wrong, but users are often more concerned with protecting people that they like than they are in license compliance.
thanks for this interesting background information!
On the other hand, I'm not trying to defend one company against the other - their lawsuit has been settled as you wrote, and so that's stuff that is in the past and doesn't have much relevance from a technical viewpoint.
When I switched from Bacula to Bareos it was a purely technical decision, driven by the ease of maintaining an installation of Bareos vs. Bacula. In the meantime, the forks have diverged a bit, and there are some very interesting features (such as a flavour of opportunistic TLS encryption based on PSK) that make me stay with Bareos.
Leon's suggestion of creating a Backup SIG that could - among other things - maintain an RPM release of recent Bacula versions would IMHO really help Bacula a lot. At least it would eliminate my first reason for switching, and probably it would never have happened had current releases been available more easily.
Cheers,
Peter.
On 1/27/19 06:56, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Hey there, what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
Thanks in advance
AMANDA - one config to encrypted LTO that are sent offsite and intended primarily for DR purposes, another config dumps a differently curated DLE list to virtual tapes kept on a local server.
On 27/01/2019 11:56, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
Hey there, what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
Thanks in advance _______________________________________________
I've been using Duplicati along with backblaze B2 + local storage, and using it on both my windows and 2 Centos boxes
I was using Crashplan for years until they shut it down for home users, and it's a great replacement
cheers
Dunc
Borg backup from EPEL.
VG Rainer
Am 27.01.19 um 12:56 schrieb Alessandro Baggi:
Hey there, what type of backup solution do you use on C7?
Thanks in advance _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Alessandro Baggi -
centos＠fullnote.com -
Duncan Brown -
Gary Stainburn -
Gordon Messmer -
J Martin Rushton -
Kenneth Porter -
Koen van Wegen -
Leo R. Lundgren -
Leon Fauster -
Nataraj -
Peter Eckel -
Pierre Malard -
Rainer Traut -
Ralf Prengel -
Valeri Galtsev -
Yves Bellefeuille