Mike McGrath mmcgrath at
Tue Jun 5 20:43:20 UTC 2007

Nils Breunese wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>> So I had a fire lit under my butt to get going on the backups
>> situation.  Here's what we're currently using:
>> BackupPC.  Run nightly.  Over SSH.  Selective backups.
>> I'd like to move to bacula. Now that we have moved all the storage off
>> of xen6 we can start to move backups there.  It has more storage then
>> lockbox does so I'd also like to do full backups.  I've installed bacula
>> from the review and I'll be testing with it and doing a review shortly.
> I'm a very happy BackupPC 3.0 user (backing up ~15 full servers daily and
> keeping 2 weeks worth for every one, around 700 GB of data, but due to
> BackupPC's pooling and compression features it all fits on a 200 GB
> drive).
We're starting to get into backup needs that will include a lot of data 
thats not redundant so backuppc's pooling won't really benefit us that much.
> I'm just wondering why we'd use Bacula over BackupPC. In my experience
> BackupPC is much easier to setup and much easier to use (the web interface
> to BackupPC is simply brilliant). It seemed to me Bacula is more geared
> towards tape backups (though you can use disk with 'virtual tapes') and
> BackupPC is more geared towards disk-based backup (though you can
> frequently write archives to tape). I also found Bacula's Brief Tutorial
> (<>) to be not so
> brief...
Hopefully we'll be using both tape and disk backups.  Once our new disk 
tray gets in we'll have to prepare to backup a couple TB of Binary 
RPMs.  Some of our backups will be going to disk, some will be going to 
tape.  Additionally it seems that bacula is more efficient at backing 
things up.


More information about the Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list