To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
One big advantage that Amanda has over Bacula is that it uses unix native utilities for storage of data (tar and dump). So, even if Amanda engine is not working you can use your age old tools to recover. Bacula uses its own (somewhat strange) format.
This is considered a big enough advantage at our site.
But Bacula's founder, Kern Sibbald, is committed to format stability. The format is documented and therefore I think you can read your old taped even in 10,20 years (if your hardware is in place, that is).
There are statically linked restore tools and even a rescue disk so you can do a bare-metal restore.
fs
In my expirience, Bacula is far more mature project. I spent whole month making Amanda work something, untill one guy suggested to try Bacula.
Amanda is ok for simple backups (when I say simple I don't mean backup your home dir), but when you need full hard time working backup (couple of sets of tapes, prexec & postexec scripts, different conditional backups, etc...) it's Bacula. Bacula is even better then some fancy solutions that cost a lot of $$.





Member since:
Someone has used Amanda and Bacula and can tell us which is better? I've read about both and Bacula seems more professional, but it's only my feeling. I know Amanda is widely used, but that not means better product.