Nils Breunese wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
> We're starting to get into backup needs that will include a lot of data
> thats not redundant so backuppc's pooling won't really benefit us that
Ok, fair enough. I thought there was talk of having static content on
multiple servers, that's where BackupPC's pooling feature could come in
pretty handy, but I have no idea about what amounts of data we're talking.
Yeah but over time thats become a much smaller percentage of our overall
backup needs. Our one-off binary files have grown much faster than our
smaller static content files have.
> 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.