[Box Backup] Backuping inversely
Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:26:25 -0200
Yes, I did consider it but it lacks a few characteristics very important
such as quota management, I've found box's quota management extremely
Thanks for the suggestion.
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 11:42 +0000, Stuart Hickinbottom wrote:
> Have you considered BackupPC (http://backuppc.sourceforge.net)? That
> keeps administration central, supports full and incremental backups, and
> has the neat feature of spotting files common to multiple clients to
> avoid duplication in the storage pool. It's also tolerant of client
> machines that come and go from the network. It also has a nice web
> interface for clients to browse backups and restore individual files or
> folder trees.
> You'd need to secure network comms with something like SSL or SSH, and
> you'll need to allow access to the clients from the server (Windows
> domain authentication is possible, as is distributing an SSH key to the
> clients that only allows the server in).
> It's fundamentally different to box, though, in that you have to trust
> the server.
> I'm using it for a small isolated network of machines I manage - I suck
> their data onto the server with BackupPC, then just back the server up
> with Bacula. This means I don't need to have all the client machines
> there and switched on in order to get a good backup.
> Pablo Fernandez wrote:
> > Hi
> > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 23:18 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >> Why do you want to keep a schedule in the first place? Why not just let
> >> the clients stream backups at their own speed, when they want to? The
> >> server should be perfectly capable of handling that.
> > This would allow you to set and manage backup policies from a
> > centralized place. Think bacula director. Think for example in the case
> > where backup is modeled as SaaS and clients are the one that are not
> > supposed to dictate their policy. Given a scenario like this where SLAs
> > are subject to contracts a central management or some sort of control is
> > quite important.
> >>> I like the assumption that the server is unsecure, but I think what is
> >>> mostly unsecure is the storage, not the server itself, as long as the
> >>> data is only accessible to the client I don't think it would be a
> >>> negative impact to allow the server to control when backups are made.
> >> I think it adds complexity and I can't see myself using it, but if others
> >> are interested as well then I'll certainly consider it. Patches would also
> >> be accepted :-)
> > I think this would add to the scalability of the project. I've been
> > looking into a rather large amount of solutions including leaders like
> > Amanda and Bacula and Box Backup is definitely on a great path, I just
> > think it lacks a few things very important for large networks where
> > maintainability is a big issue.
> > Best regards,
> > Pablo
> >> Cheers, Chris.
> > _______________________________________________
> > boxbackup mailing list
> > email@example.com
> > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup
> boxbackup mailing list