[CentOS] CentOS 5.2 and Bacula

Filipe Brandenburger filbranden at gmail.com
Wed Nov 5 06:13:44 UTC 2008


On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 21:26, Jun Salen <nokijun at 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.


More information about the CentOS mailing list