I have been googling about the differences between them.

  • Bacula has lots of roles
  • BackupPC is easier to configure
  • Bacula works with agent, not rsync (great for Windows backups)

It seems that Bacula is most often compared to Amanda though, while BackupPC seems a perfectly lovely and popular backup distribution to.

I currently backup my servers with rsnapshot, but I am looking for a professional scalable solution that could also back-up 50 hosts without problems. Preferably a solution that can offer bare metal restores for my Linux servers. I am not looking to reinstall the exact same version of Plesk, the software, etc...

Update: I see this ranks high in Google, I found a good article: http://www.serverfocus.org/backuppc-vs-bacula-vs-amanda. I personally think that BackupPC is good for smaller environment, but Bacula, despite the high learning curve, is better for environments that requilre scaling.

closed as not constructive by Chris S Feb 5 '12 at 18:06

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    I'm not really sure what you're asking here -- perhaps you can edit your question to clarify? If you're looking for advice, I would say that I've been using Bacula successfully for many years, and if properly configured it is scalable and easy to manage. It also behaves in a manner that any backup/storage guy will be able to understand pretty easily. More info/stories/etc. @ linux.com/archive/feature/132562 – voretaq7 Jun 20 '11 at 17:12
  • How does Plesk factor into any of this? – John Gardeniers Jun 20 '11 at 21:25
  • I think hes talking about the difference between bare metal restores vs. data only restores. – ErnieTheGeek Jun 21 '11 at 12:57

I'm using Bacula to backup 2 servers for 2 years now. My Bacula server is running in a ReadyNAS duo (which has only a 186 BogoMips sparc processor and 2x1To raid disk).

  • Bacula scales quite well and is quite robust even if your backup storage becomes full,
  • Bacula is not easy to configure at first but at the end it allows to control your backup strategies,
  • It requires a database (sqlite or MySQL),
  • Backup storage (tapes or files) have a proprietary compressed format,
  • There is no user interface (some addon exist but they are not at the same level as BackupPC)

The biggest problems I have had were not in the Bacula configuration but in defining the good backup strategies to avoid backup storage explosion.

Check out the following article to know more: One year of data backup with Bacula on a ReadyNAS duo


Awhile ago, when I was attempting to replace my excellent collection of shell scripts to perform backups to a tape library with Bacula, I noticed one significant problem. The fact that it could not manage multiple tape drives for operations. This might have changed but it was a significant issue to me. What eventually happened was that the Netbackup package was implemented since my company got the license cheaper as part of a company takeover.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.