Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:04:19 -0500 From: Nathan Ahlstrom <nrahlstr@winternet.com> To: Joseph Scott <joseph@randomnetworks.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BRU 2000 and FBSD 3.1 Message-ID: <19990407130419.B15292@winternet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904071325440.11660-100000@sonic.digital-web.net>; from Joseph Scott on Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 01:29:46PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904071325440.11660-100000@sonic.digital-web.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joseph Scott <joseph@randomnetworks.com> wrote: > > I was looking at BRU 2000 (the commericial edition) to do backups > on some new FBSD 3.1 machines that will be going up soon. I was wondering > if anyone had any stories, bad or good, in regards to BRU on FBSD; > especially 3.1 and the X11 interface. > > By the way, I came across BRU at http://www.freebsdmall.com/ and > if we decide to go for it that's where we'll order it from. I use the BRU 2000 to backup the FreeBSD.org servers. It is ok. I runs fine on 2.2-STABLE, 3.1-STABLE, and -current (pre KVM changes). The version I have is a BSDI statically linked version. Are they now offering a native FreeBSD version? [I should note that I have not tried it since the KVM changes were put into -stable and -current, I hope it still works.] My only complaint is that it has few provisions for tape management, which is why I would prefer to use amanda24. If amanda supported backup images larger than the tape size. I have not used the X11 interface. -- Nathan Ahlstrom FreeBSD: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ nrahlstr@winternet.com PGP Key ID: 0x67BC9D19 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990407130419.B15292>