From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 14 10:59:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE2116A4E0 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.volant.org (gate.volant.org [207.111.218.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E039A43FBD for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:59:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from patl+freebsd@volant.org) Received: from 64-144-229-193.client.dsl.net ([64.144.229.193] helo=[192.168.0.13]) by smtp.volant.org with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.22) id 1A9TSE-000BVI-GR; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:59:30 -0700 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:59:26 -0700 From: Pat Lashley To: Rick Duvall , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <1204245408.1066154366@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org> In-Reply-To: <003b01c39275$9fe96d50$f901a8c0@ws21> References: <003b01c39275$9fe96d50$f901a8c0@ws21> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0b8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Scan-Signature: 7b33573f9e9b8385c23871630bd25d8fe29bb525 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Spam-Score-Int: -14 X-Spam-Report: -1.4/5.0 This mail has matched the spam-filter tests listed below. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for details about the specific tests reported. In general, the higher the number of total points, the more likely that it actually is spam. (The 'required' number of points listed below is the arbitrary number above which the message is normally considered spam.) Content analysis details: (-1.40 points total, 5 required)header IN_REP_TO (-0.5 points) Has a In-Reply-To header quoted email text REPLY_WITH_QUOTES (-0.5 points) Reply with quoted text AWL (0.6 points) AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment Subject: Re: Amanda or Bacula X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:59:36 -0000 --On Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:07:18 -0700 Rick Duvall wrote: > I have about 200 gigs of data to back up every night on multiple machines > on the network. All are either FreeBSD or Linux based. My backup > machine is FreeBSD. I have about 30 gigs of dump drive space, and a 20 > gig tape drive. I am pretty much convinced that even if I use > compression, I will need to span across multiple tapes or get a bigger > tape drive. At the very least I may have to get more dump drive and do > incremental backups. At any rate, I am having a hard time deciding > between Amanda and Bacula. Amanda has been around forever and is known > to work, but to the best of my knowledge doesn't span across multiple > tapes. Bacula, on the other hand, does span across multiple tapes, but > it hasn't been out as long. With AMANDA, each filesystem's dump must fit on a single tape; but it can use multiple tapes in a single dump run. I've been using AMANDA for several years now; and one of the things that I like about it is that you tell it how many tapes you have and how long a dump cycle you want; and it decides when to run full or incremental dumps for each partition; and the level of increment on the incrementals. It is easy to set it up to ensure that there are at least two full dumps on tape at any given time; even if you have a very limited number of tapes. I now have a couple of disks that are too large to fit a full dump onto a single tape; so I've been looking into other backup systems. Bacula seems to be the top contender because it appears to be able to span a single partition's dump across multiple tapes. But it uses the classic 'full dump every X, incremental every Y, differential every Z' scheduling mechanism. Which means that I'd need to split my tapes into a set for full dumps and another for incremental or differential dumps. And worry about exactly how many tapes I need in each. And which set I have loaded into the limited-capacity auto-changer. (AMANDA uses the tapes in sequence; so I just swap the 7-tape carrier for the next one when it complains that it can't find the one it wants.) So I'm stuck trying to choose between a system with a real good scheduling algorythm; but unable to backup large partitions; and a system that can handle large partitions; but uses a scheduling scheme that may require me to spend hundreds of dollars for more tapes... -Pat