On 04/25/2014 03:49 PM, compdoc wrote:
>> I keep hearing talk of "old community code" which makes it sound like the
>> Win32 support has become proprietary.
> It does sound as if Bacula will eventually become the world's hardest to
> install, pay-for backup solution. Not that I blame Bacula for goi
On 04/25/2014 01:46 PM, Martin Simmons wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:47:49 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
>> On 04/22/2014 03:30 PM, Martin Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:38:13 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
In general yes, it is much more stable, because it is build by
Bacul
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, compdoc wrote:
> > Not to worry: as of windows 7, windows backup is still broken
>
> Windows 7 Pro backup is ok, but it does break easily and doesn't tell you
> that its stopped working...
>
>
How are you running the Windows backup? As a scheduled task on Windo
On 04/25/2014 09:57 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 04/25/14 10:44, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
>> On 4/25/2014 8:49 AM, compdoc wrote:
>>
>>> However, I think without open source Windows clients people won't take the
>>> considerable time it takes to learn how to install Bacula, and they will
>>> turn t
> Not to worry: as of windows 7, windows backup is still broken
Windows 7 Pro backup is ok, but it does break easily and doesn't tell you
that its stopped working...
--
Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo
> If you have Windows 7 Pro, Windows Backup is actually fairly usable as
> an image-backup tool, though it's nearly worthless for file-level
> restore. If you have Windows 7 Home, it's intentionally crippled. I'm
> actually considering a hybrid approach - Win7 native image backup for
> bare-metal
On 04/25/14 10:44, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> On 4/25/2014 8:49 AM, compdoc wrote:
>
>> However, I think without open source Windows clients people won't take the
>> considerable time it takes to learn how to install Bacula, and they will
>> turn to other solutions.
>
> Not to worry: as of windows 7
On 4/25/2014 8:49 AM, compdoc wrote:
> However, I think without open source Windows clients people won't take the
> considerable time it takes to learn how to install Bacula, and they will
> turn to other solutions.
Not to worry: as of windows 7, windows backup is still broken and the
rest of th
> I keep hearing talk of "old community code" which makes it sound like the
>Win32 support has become proprietary.
It does sound as if Bacula will eventually become the world's hardest to
install, pay-for backup solution. Not that I blame Bacula for going closed
source: money is a strong motivator
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:47:49 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
>
> On 04/22/2014 03:30 PM, Martin Simmons wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:38:13 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
> >> In general yes, it is much more stable, because it is build by
> >> Bacula Systems (usually me) with the correct libra
On 04/24/2014 03:06 PM, Tomáš Brandýský
wrote:
Hello,
it seems we've finally found the source of the strange
behaviour we were experiencing with bacula-fw on
On 04/22/2014 03:30 PM, Martin Simmons wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:38:13 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
>> In general yes, it is much more stable, because it is build by
>> Bacula Systems (usually me) with the correct libraries and delivered
>> to paying customers. With other versions you get
My best guess is that the output from
powershell forms a directive something like:
File = D:\Thunderbird Profile\hfkeo6lv.default\Extensions
...
as seen by the Bacula parser, which is absolutely not going to
work because it has spaces in it
Hello,
it seems we've finally found the source of the strange behaviour we were
experiencing with bacula-fw on Windows.
The powershell scripts which was supposed to return the list of files for
backup terminated with errors when it was run under system account (in
which bacula-fd is run) and bacul
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:38:13 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
>
> In general yes, it is much more stable, because it is build by
> Bacula Systems (usually me) with the correct libraries and delivered
> to paying customers. With other versions you get they may or may
> not be built with the correct
It seems to me the best choice to make sure one has working and stable
backup solution of Windows machine is to buy a bacula-fd version from
Bacula Systems.
We are currently facing a bug with the following configuration:
1. Bacula director is in 5.2.13 version
2. we have following fileset configur
On 04/22/2014 11:48 AM, Tomáš Brandýský
wrote:
Hello,
what is actually the difference between community version
and enterprise version of bacula-fd for Windows ?
Is the
Hello,
what is actually the difference between community version and enterprise
version of bacula-fd for Windows ?
Is the paid version more stable or has more features ?
I am asking because we have found an annoying bug when using bacula-fd
5.2.10 on Windows. If this bug is already fixed in enter
Hello,
Yes, the old community Windows binaries should work with 7.0.x,
but I have not explicitly tested it. Also the newer 6.0.6
binaries should work as well.
I am just now fixing some bugs in the Windows FD, some of them
long standing, and on
Thank you very much for a quick response.
Tomas
On 17 April 2014 12:27, Luc Van der Veken wrote:
> http://blog.bacula.org/p710/
>
>
>
> Second to last paragraph: “We are still working on new Windows binaries as
> well as releasing a full set of binaries for many platforms. Hopefully that
> wi
http://blog.bacula.org/p710/
Second to last paragraph: “We are still working on new Windows binaries as well
as releasing a full set of binaries for many platforms. Hopefully that will be
finished before the end of April.”
To close the gap between 5.2.10 and 7.0, Windows binaries 6.0.6 are avai
Hello,
could anyone give me a hint where I could get the latest bacula-fd client
for Windows, please ?
The latest version of Windows client found at Bacula site is in version
5.2.10 whereas the latest Bacula server version is 7.0.2.
Is bacula-fd in version 5.2.10 fully compatible with latest bac
22 matches
Mail list logo
