[geeks] Backup software (yeah, yeah, I know)

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Apr 8, 2009, at 20:55 , der Mouse wrote:

>> Things like Bacula and Amanda are massive overkill for most people,
>> and they are really annoying and inflexible to set up.
>
> Bacula I don't know.  Amanda is massive overkill for anyone with fewer
> than several machines to back up, and even some of them.

That was my view of them.

I mostly just gave up anyway.

The last few times I had to do backups, I wrote my own stuff, but that  
was using tape.

I prefer tape over just about anything else.  It works.

The rest of the crap out there doesn't.

Unfortunately tape drives and media that are actually good are also  
quite expensive, even for business use.

>> That said, Amanda does work really well from what I hear, and I think
>> there is now an easier version available, but it requires Solaris.
>
> Amanda used to be great.  Now it's merely good -- and going downhill.

That sucks.

> Amanda 2.6.1 needs glib, which needs pkg-config.  I brought over all
> three and started trying to make them build.

What are the issues with glib.  I avoid it when possible just because  
I don't like GNU stuff most of the time, but what do you dislike about  
it?

I've only read a little of the code, and did see things I don't like,  
but not near enough to actually have an opinion.

> All three of them have caught the ./configure disease.

The whole GNU autotools suite is a steaming mound of crap.

> But my management chain told me we considered the risk acceptable,  
> so I
> ran the configure scripts.  I startd with pkg-config, of course.

[ snip ]

I had a lot of trouble too, but I figured it was my impatience, and I  
also tried Amanda pre-packaged.

I just didn't like either, I just hear they and Bacula are good.

> The Makefile uses nonstandard, apparently GNU-make-specific, syntax -

Just to nitpick... do you know of a make that is standard?

All of them have non-standard features and it's really a bitch to use  
the nicer features without breaking it for other systems.

Or is there some standard that I have missed out on?

I prefer BSD make, simply because I don't like how GNU make does  
things, even though it does have a lot of features.

But I don't believe BSD make and its extensions are any more  
"standard" than Sun's or any others.

I'd love to be wrong though, and start doing it the "one true way"... :)

> (No, I haven't reported any of these.  pkg-config and glib don't
> provide bug-reporting addresses, only Web-form horrors, and as far  
> as I
> can tell from grepping for "bug" or "report", amanda doesn't provide
> even that much.)

What really ticks me off is when not only is there no email address,  
but you actually have to sign up to do them the favor of a bug report.


-- 
"Where some they sell their dreams for small desires."