CentOS - Jul 2015 - Backups solution from WinDoze to linux

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!

Valeri

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 8:22 PM Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at
kicp.uchicago.edu>
wrote:


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!


Story, as I understand it, is that the developer needed an incentive to get
people to pay for a license, so closed distribution of the Windows File
Daemon (the program that reads files and sends them off for storage, for
those unfamiliar) so that only those who pay for a subscription can use it.
(This is all perfectly legal.)

Naturally, this pissed off people who couldn't afford the license, but were
already committed to their implementation.

So...Bareos is a fork from the last open version of that code.

As for why I use Bareos, I'd spent copious time studying Bacula's manual
and figuring out how to apply it. I was 80% of the way through
implementation, complete with offsite backup of all my Linux hosts.

And then I went to back up the Windows hosts. I was not happy.

Took me only a day to rebuild it with Bareos.

On 15-07-15 19:22:04, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
 
> What is the story between bareos and bacula? 
FYI: https://www.bareos.org/en/faq/items/why_fork.html

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/

--
LF

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