Hi, On 3/22/2007 9:23 AM, Kev Latimer wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been keeping an eye on Bacula for a number of a years, and I'm now > in a position to actually go ahead and deploy it - we've just too many > boxen and too complicated a combination of rsync, dump/rdump, tar and > scp, smbclient, and I'm really looking forward to a coherent platform > for once :-)
Really a good idea... once you've got everything running you'll have time to do other things :-) > My question may have been answered before - what would be the > recommended approacjh to installing Bacula on a Debian box? Apt-getting > will grab you either 1.36.2, 1.38.11 or 2.0.3, depending on your flavour > of Debian (Sarge, Etch, Sid) and there is an option of 2.0.1 from deb > packages on Sourceforge. Oh yeah, and source as well ;-) I'd definitely recommend 2.0.3 for a new installation. I don't think there are serious instabilities in there, and bugs that surface after .3 was released - they will exist - are unlikely to affect the majority of installations. The most current version has the advantage of new features and, probably more important, a longer support lifetime. For example, I doubt that there are many users still running 1.36, and so, once you run into trouble, you'll have a hard time finding help on the mailing lists. > > I've installed Etch on my planned box (partly because I expect Etch to > be the new stable very soon but mainly because Open-ISCSI has made it in > there - yay!) and was just going to go with 1.38.11 for convenience and > the assumed stability of a non-unstable package. Kern, as well as the other developers, are usually rather careful when releasing a new version, and there are many beta testers around. So I'd say any released version of Bacula can be considered "quite stable". The first few bugfixes come rather quickly, but once the frequncy of new releases goes down I'd say a version is ready for production deployment even in demanding installations. Using whatever your debian version offers would have the advantage of their support regarding packages, though. > However, John Goerzen > (thanks for packaging btw) said in an earlier posting that he expects > the the 2.0.x packages to be of a higher quality than the 1.38.x ones. Then I'd believe him :-) > I've already run some test apt-get's and installing on Etch from > unstable doesn't seem to bring any terrifying dependency problems. Are > there any bods out there using the unstable packages in a production system? Not the debian ones, but in the office I usually run the (more stable) Bacula development versions for testing purposes. I even manage customer's installations with development version, but that's something I wouldn't recommend to everyone :-) > Any advice is gratefully received! Use 2.0.3 and install from packages, if possible. If there are no packages, compile from source and prepare to switch to a packaged version as soon as possible. Arno > Cheers, > > Kev > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-users mailing list > Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users -- IT-Service Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arno Lehmann http://www.its-lehmann.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
