On 16.07.2015 11:36, Leon Fauster wrote: > Am 16.07.2015 um 02:22 schrieb Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>: >> >> On Wed, July 15, 2015 7:05 pm, Michael Mol wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 10:37 AM <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: >>> >>> My manager just tasked me at looking at this, for one team we're >>> supporting. Now, he'd been thinking of bacula, but I see their Windows >>> binaries are now not-free, so I'm looking around. IIRC, Les thinks highly >>> of backuppc; comments on that, or other packaged solutions? >>> >>> >>> We use Bareos extensively. By default, Bareos is Bacula-compatible. We use >>> Bareos extensively. >> >> What is the story between bareos and bacula? And why you prefer bareos as >> opposed to bacula. Just curios: I use bacula (it is bacula 5, server is >> FreeBSD, clients are CentOS 5,6,7, FreeBSD 9,10, Windows 7). Thanks for >> your insights! > > > I personally prefer bacula. For more informations about the case above look at: > > http://blog.bacula.org/category/kerns-blog/ > http://blog.bacula.org/category/status-reports/ > http://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/message/33199834/ > I've tried bacula/bareos and they are horribly outdated in how they approach backups and only really useful if you use tape backups (because that's the only target they were designed for). I've found obnam to be a good solution as it is lightweight, does de-deduplication (no full/incremental/differential nonsense) and can backup any sftp source. It's not perfect but the best tools I've found so far. Regards, Dennis