After performance and feature testing AMANDA and Bacula, we’ve decided to go with AMANDA. The speed that AMANDA was able to backup data over the network was nearly twice that of Bacula (80 MB/s compared to 40 MB/s), and AMANDA was slightly faster pushing data to tape (77 MB/s compared to 63 MB/s). The speed advantages that AMANDA showed within our topology were significant enough to warrant it as our backup program of choice. That being said, within other topologies and with different needs, I would suggest looking closely at both programs, as both are excellent and have different strenghts.
-
-
Filed under:
Comments 2
But Bacula have compress feature, which is AMANDA do not have. Your compare include the compress or not?
Posted 09 Sep 2007 at 2:16 pm ¶Our tape hardware does have hardware compression, and I did not compare software compression between the two programs. The AMANDA docs suggest employing either software or hardware compressions, but not both. I believe AMANDA does support several types of software compression. For more information on AMANDA software compression, you can look at the dumptype section of the amanda.conf documentation: http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Amanda.conf
Posted 09 Sep 2007 at 4:14 pm ¶Post a Comment