[ On Wednesday, October 13, 1999 at 12:35:16 (+0000), tgruhn@olg.com wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Multi-box, networked backups
>
>   I don't mind the "automation", then I can throw it into a PERL
> script or a cron job. In the future I plan on using it to backup
> my wifes WIN NT system -- if I can figure out how to get my original
> speed of 375 to 450KB/s back!

> Yesterday, some dude sent me a huge
> email -- it contained a shar file with a bunch of shared memory
> routines in ANSI-C. This is generally a SYSV feature (LINUX TOO?).
> I am gonna compile and install them, if I can keep a steady stream
> writing to tape, I don't see why I can't get back to 400KB/s.

What you received may be similar to the "buffer" program mentioned by
David Maxwell.

However if you're trying to do backups across the network and directly
to tape you may not be able to feed the tape drive as fast as you want
no matter how hard you try.  (Depending of course on exactly what
hardware you are using for each component of this "system".)

Amanada uses a holding disk to which backups are written and then copied
out to tape.  Amanda's job is to schedule resources so make most
effective use of what's available.

Amanada can also do backups of non-Unix clients.

Amanada rides on top of basic file archiving tools that have been well
proven to work reliably (such as dump & restore!) and which are
completely non-proprietary.  Amanda backups can be retrieved without
needing Amanada on the system being restored (assuming you use dump or
tar or whatever as the archive format).

You really should look at Amanda!  ;-)  It's in pkgsrc, and it just
builds, installs, and works.  It does take some time to configure
optimally, especially if you use a tape library, but it's not too hard
to learn to use

> BTW: What do you have against BRU as a backup system?

I've heard, and experienced, far more horror stories with it than
positive comments.

I see BRU as kind of like those "sort" packages the old mainframer's
used to sell each other.  It's not a really "enterprise" backup system,
and in the Unix world it doesn't really do any more than the tools
already there, and perhaps not as reliably (in the early days it was far
more broken than tar and/or cpio on the systems it was most commonly
marketed for), and perhaps not as flexibly (doesn't it still prefer a
proprietary archive format?).  I'm sure it has improved over time as all
software does, of course, but it's certainly not the kind of commercial
software that I'd be eager to go out and buy and then trust my disaster
recovery to, even with all the necessary testing and dry runs one should
do with any such software.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>