From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 29 14:55:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2420E16A4CE for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:55:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail16.txucom.net (mail16.txucom.net [207.70.175.47]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D849443D31 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:55:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bob@buckhorn.net) Received: (qmail 16379 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2004 22:55:26 -0000 Received: from lfkn-adsl-dhcp-net1-197.txucom.net (HELO tardis.buckhorn.net) ([207.70.145.197]) (envelope-sender ) by mail16.txucom.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 29 Mar 2004 22:55:26 -0000 Received: from buckhorn.net (localhost.buckhorn.net [127.0.0.1]) by tardis.buckhorn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC1E1B8F00 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:55:31 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4068A962.9080000@buckhorn.net> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:55:30 -0600 From: Bob Martin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org References: <20040329183323.GC51870@telus.net> <200403292211.58942.cs@cheasy.de> <4068997A.9000400@buckhorn.net> <1080597729.1256.77.camel@dvmgentoo> In-Reply-To: <1080597729.1256.77.camel@dvmgentoo> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: tape backup from remote X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:55:27 -0000 I'm guessing that the reason that there are many options is that there are many [different] needs. I didn't mean to disparage amanda. It's solid code, and been around for years. Another option that has gained a lot of momentum and popularity is doing away with the tapes all together and just dumping to disk. Not a good fit for all, but an excellent fit for many. Bob Dan Vande More wrote: > Some people/networks see no problems with rdump. In most cases, I myself > would recommend amanda though. > Amanda has the distinct advantage of being able to spool data to the > "holding disk" at which point another utility writes this to the tape. > This eliminates the t(h?)rashing Christoph mentioned. > This is almost word for word out of the documenation. > > http://www.backupcentral.com/amanda.html > > Amanda can also be configured to compress on the client, and send to the > server. This is much more efficient than transferring text files, etc. > > HTH, > > Dan Vande More > >