Bacula is good, backups are hard
Just finished implementing a network backup solution for a customer using Bacula and reached these comclusions:
Bacula is hard. But that is mostly because the problem is hard. You need to backup 30 different computers over a net, in a secure manner, with different data sets for each... well, it is going to involve defining 30 datasets and so on.
Bacula is very good. It supports VSS, which alleviates the classic windows "that file is open you can not read it" problem.
-
Backing up Windows sucks.
It is pretty hard to know what to backup exactly to catch all configs and user data. Not so much on XP, but on older versions... yikes.
You pretty much can't ever be sure you are allowed to back up everything. I have a fileserver with files the local administrator can not read. So, it seems a user can create unbackupable files!
I still need a decent system backup for Linux. I have used Mondo for a long time, but it's a pain in the butt, and it's getting more painful as time passes. I want something that I call and I get a nice DVD with the whole system in it. If you have a suggestion, please drop a comment ;-)
A system that automates the backup policy as much as Bacula does is great. Except that it makes it quite hard to guess the exact amount of storage (I am doing disk-based backups) you will need.
For simpler stuff, you should use flexbackup. Their slogan is amanda is "too much", and tarring things up by hand isn't nearly enough and it pretty much is what it does.
For personal stuff, rdiff-backup is awesome. I really should write a graphical tool for it one of these years :-)
There is no way to backup a windows PC correctly via Samba. Backuppc uses that, so it will not work.
It can be done *almost* right, but it will not work 100% of the time, or for 100% of the files :-(
It's in their FAQ, and it is a real problem in most serious environments.
take a look at http://backuppc.sf.net
It's quite easy to configure and for my old company did the job fine.
I think that the domain administrator could give files inaccessable by the local admin 'backup only' privleges. I know there is a default backup group which exists so that members of this group can backup files without being able to read them. My reccolection may be slightly off but the granularity and interactions of the Windows ACLs are both very nice and occasionally confusing.
Congradulations on trying to back things up. I've been working in the backup industry for a few years now, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard people crying over lost data.
So... I hope you have at least 3 copies of everything (Unless you are backing up CVS, they should be separated by some time so you can get back mistakes), with one stored offsite.
By 3 copies I mean 3 physically different copies. There is one popular software product that will not be updated again because they had 3 backups - all to the one harddrive. (I can't give more details because they are still selling it and don't want customers to know)
Thanks for the hint re: backup privileges.
However, what's the point of a backup privilege that can't read the files? All the backup user has to do is back them up then read the backups! :-)
Henry: Sure, don't worry, we are covered ;-)
In Linux, I know about g4u
http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/
but I never used it. I'll try backuppc :-)
In Windows I use Acronis . It's not free, but it's perfect to backup the whole HD and save in another PC using netwok
In Linux , I've use SysRescueCD: compress a partition, but record directly into CD/DVD dont work for me.
Hello Roberto
I use backuppc on my network at work. It informs me right now that stores 4.2TB of data (worth 6 months of backup from 15 machines) on 270GB of physical disk. And it prepares things for DVD for you if you want too. We backup macos but not windows (although I know windows is a big application for people using it) and I'm rather sure it doesn't support backing up locked windows files.
Excellent product, IMNSHO. And yes, amanda is way too much.