Mac Backup Software

mrk4's picture
Forums: 

We are currently running Retrospect 8.2, but its getting me down!

It works, but its just so slow, large backups are really frustrating.

I tried Prestore - but it's too expensive to get the options we need, and BRU didn't seem to work with our Quantum i40 LTO5 library (though the drive mech worked) - though I think it may have been conflicting with a Retrospect daemon.

Just wondering what people were using and their experiences.

Thanks

brianwells's picture

We were using BRU Server, but it did not do everything we required and there were some strange issues.

Now we have PresSTORE and we use it for backup, archive, and synchronization. Expensive, but has saved our data on several occasions.

JSamuel's picture

Both for my own kit and clients, PresSTORE has a price-tag (agreed) but I never have to worry about it, and it runs like a dream. I've not had any issues to date that weren't PEBKAC.

Joel Samuel.
/thirtytwo - Apple Consultancy & Direction
Proud sponsor of Xsanity.com

All contributions are my own personal opinions - not those of any entity I represent.

morphenine's picture

Its an expensive business. I learned the hard way to put the backup system into the initial quote instead of trying to add it later.

I've worked with almost all of the backup systems (for mac). I have to say that if you're just backing up your SAN, and you have a tape library with the capacity for it, PresSTORE is my favorite. Runs well, easy to install, pretty sleek.
Retrospect, not so great for these backups. And if you ever have to do a full volume restore you'll be cursing Retrospect forever!

On a side note, I also really like the archiving feature of PresSTORE as well.

aaron's picture

Backup software is only expensive until you need it.

Aaron Freimark
CTO, Tekserve

macalex101's picture

PresSTORE. Simple to use, easy to configure and really efficient tech support for when I manage to do dumb things.

loccoliv's picture

bru with 400gb tapes has been working fine for us since 2006

Solidus's picture

PresSTORE all day long.

Expensive until you call on it and it works like a charm. Feature rich as well.

Archiware are extremely helpful if you run into issues.

mark raudonis's picture

We're using "Storage DNA", which uses LTFS onto LTO5 drives.

Best thing about it is that it creates a searchable file structure. Incredibly helpful when you're looking to retrieve "just that one little file", not restore an entire volume.

http://www.storagedna.com/

New GUI coming out very soon.

Mark

Solidus's picture

I have concerns about LTFS given that it is linear and the associated issues with its usage.

You have found it good though I suppose?

mark raudonis's picture

"I have concerns about LTFS given that it is linear..."

Well any LTO back up is linear, no? I don't understand your concerns.

Storage DNA is more of a complete system with an associated server which
maintains a searchable index all the way down to the individual file.

The issue here is that there's many different types of back up, and plenty of systems tuned specifically to your needs. THe trick is to find the one that works best for you.

Mark/quote

abstractrude's picture

solidus. you are correct. LTFS is not a backup tool or backup software. LTFS just allows the the tape to be mounted like a traditional drive, in sense it shows up on the desktop and you can write to it.

storageDNA which is cool but aimed at large deployments, does the work of managing the tapes index.

you are correct about the mechanical issues. 'shoe shining' is a major issue, in theory when you write to tape you want to write a continuous stream or at least reduce the number of rewinds that are made to the tape. LTFS is an interesting technology but should not be at the heart of any backup solution. for archive, its a very cool technology. because it makes retrieval easy years down the road, and its interoperable with many systems. Then again TAR was for UNIX and still is today. as someone who has deployed huge tape solutions, stay away from LTFS for now unless you have a powerful asset tool behind it such as storage DNA.

also, the technology isn't standard yet. wait another year or so before jumping into the LTFS bucket. whats the worst that could happen?
I do not work for archiware, but this is an interesting prospective they had.
http://www.archiware.com/blog/?p=187

-Trevor Carlson
THUMBWAR