Mike McGrath wrote:
Nils Breunese wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>> Hopefully we'll be using both tape and disk backups. Once our new disk
>> tray gets in we'll have to prepare to backup a couple TB of Binary
>> RPMs. Some of our backups will be going to disk, some will be going to
>> tape. Additionally it seems that bacula is more efficient at backing
>> things up.
> Efficient in term of what precisely? And what backend are we using with
> BackupPC right now?
In terms of how long it takes to do the backups and how much load it
requires. BackupPC is written in perl.
The backup times and load differ greatly with the backend you choose. Are
we doing rsync over ssh right now? We could speed that up by using
Blowfish. Maybe rsyncd? If we want to reduce the load we could also go
with the tar backend, though that will increase the traffic used. But
yeah, it could entirely be the case that Bacula is more suited for this