![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-06. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Insert non-formatted text here
The entries are now going either going in in random order or people are incapable of putting them in Alphabetically. Fabkins ( talk) 09:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Should there not be a section for online backup solutions like mozy.com ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.92.135 ( talk • contribs)
Proposed: Merge Managed backup providers into this page. That page would make a good section on this page and then we can have one fewer page full of spam links. -- Austin Murphy 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a link repository, and that's all this page was. I have merged the salvageable parts of this article to Backup software. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-02-22 00:10Z
For some reason, backup software is a popular category to spam. Everyone and their brother has apparently written a backup software package and wants to register it with wikipedia. Since these edits are being done nearly daily and there is no sign of them stopping, this page is probably the best place for them. Other wikipages dealing with backup software should wikilink here instead of enumerating a list of packages themselves. This page could possibly prevent a plethora of uninteresting stub articles about insignificant backup software packages. -- Austin Murphy 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be cool if we knew which operating systems the software was able to back up. Maybe its time we make a Comparison of backup software -- Krappie 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is correct? (I can see where an entry would appear more than once, just not a case where it is clearly categorized and then declared uncategorized.)
-- KevinCole 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think sections need to be improved. What differentiates a "large network" from a "small network?" Why is 'dump' not in 'for single machine?' -- Karnesky 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft Enterprise Data Protection is not listed as CDP, although it is mentioned in the first sentence of its article that it in fact is. Changing CDP status... Flegozoff ( talk) 02:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Any reason external URLs (which are meant to be fairly temporary--to promote stubs to be started) are now in a reference section? -- Karnesky 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone mind if rsync.net is added to the Managed backup service providers list? I was going to add it but I didn't know the wiki naming convention: RsyncDotNet or Rsync_Net_(website) or ...? Meonkeys 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Genie Backup Manager has been removed many times from the article and then re-added. Why should it or should not be in this list? Jeltz talk 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
... its merits / demerits aside? -thanks, Onceler 03:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Odin [3] should appear in the list of Open Source backup software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.118.5 ( talk) 15:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A while ago I removed redlinks as a good measure of non-notability and spam links, but was reverted. Another editor has just performed the same task. Let's discuss the best way forward. -- Steve (Stephen) talk 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
rdiff-backup is mentioned in the rsync article. I am surprised it doesn't have an own article yet considering how well-known it is. It is even included in the core Ubuntu distribution (i.e. not universe) [4]. I took the liberty of re-adding it to the article after seeing the number of Google hits [5]. Jeltz talk 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned it up again. -- Hm2k ( talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I see this article is still attracting redlink spam. A reminder to newer editors that this article only lists notable entries with their own articles. Please don't add or restore entries without articles - they will be removed. Greenman ( talk) 00:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added HeatSoft Automatic Sync but I think someone deleted it, I find it very powerfull, and cost/effective. I suggest to add it for small networks, because it is used by known companies as: Lockhead Martin, Hyundai, Audi and even the US ARMY. The link is: http://heatsoft.lugermedia.com/en_index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.159.158 ( talk) 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Quick background first. My name is Brian Gardner. I do currently work for Yosemite. Before that, I worked for EMC and Legato helping drive NetWorker development.
All I'd like to see here is some note about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapeware (Yosemite's original product) and Yosemite Backup (Tapeware's new name). Tapeware has been around in some form since prior to 1990. Yosemite itself was founded in 1996 (but I need to verify that date). Yosemite Backup has 1000's of customers who have paid in excess of US$500 (not worth what it once was, I know) for the Master Server alone, so it does seem to deserve a place on this list.
I'd be happy to write it up, and add to other backup software content as well. But I don't want to get flamed by the community here because they think I'm just doing this to promote myself or my company. The kind of info I'm thinking of is provenance, such as is available on wikipedia for backupexec, platform coverage, etc.
So, folks, what's the best way to add Yosemite info and possibly add to NetWorker background as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.117.61 ( talk) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I currently use this service and find it to be extremely good. It's a new service taking the UK by storm. I'd already added a total recall page to the Managed backup service providers section of this article before I noticed a requirement to discuss it's addition. Is their any objection to it? Kashiabu ( talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The consensus formed above is to link to articles about software. External links to software aren't appropriate (read WP:EL for more information about external links) and links to articles about companies that make software don't belong in this article. If a backup software program or package is notable enough to have its own article, then it should be linked here. Otherwise, this list will become a linktrap. Brilliant Pebble ( talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a good starting point for a discussion, and I kind of agree with the view of "if there's no article on the software itself, it's not worth linking". *However*, unless the whole article follows this principle, I have an issue with my BakBone link being removed. First of all, BakBone more or less only produces NetVault, which is mentioned in the company article, but secondly, almost all of the links *already* point to software companies. Examples are "CommVault Systems", "Computer Associates", "SonicWall", "UltraBac Software", and "Unitrends". That's more than a third of the links in that section. So until someone can come up with a reason why *those* links are valid and fixes the article accordingly, I'm going to put BakBone back in there - and once I've got time, I'll write an article on the product. It's certainly more valid than a link to a Wiki article that doesn't even exist to a company (InMage Systems), and while I'd be hoping to provide full articles for all the links mentioned, I'd rather have company links than no information at all for the time being. Quark999 ( talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2010 Jan 10: Western Digital Smartware should be put on Wikipedia to compare to other software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.154.48 ( talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've realized that some of the products on this page are not necessarily "Backup Software". Especially things like CDP solutions - given the amount of links, maybe grouping by "Large", "Small" and "Single" isn't enough, and in some cases not even appropriate. Maybe we should instead focus on certain functionality aspects? Although I fear that might open the flood gates for more discussions on whether or not a certain software package supports that feature or not... Quark999 ( talk) 23:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not add these to the list because they don't necessarily have Wikipedia pages yet:
Many excellent free ones here: http://www.tech-faq.com/free-backup-software.shtml -- Espoo ( talk) 20:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What about
would be nice to see products delineated for backing up live machines (Symantec? ComVault?)-- Billymac00 ( talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd point out Cobian Backup is listed under open source, although it does at least put "freeware" as the license. I don't want to mess around on the actual page, but somebody with a little more knowledge of wikipedia standards &c. might look into it?
Cobian 11 is NOT OPEN SOURCE, in fact the author license is Luis Cobian and he is now selling the source code. -- 98.206.129.63 ( talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The table needs information on the requeriment of server software running on the server of storage. It is important, becasue many users are given a network space for backup, witouth a backup service running, and it makes impossible to use a client-server architecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.109.103 ( talk) 12:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
1) The version column is useless. The projects can think up any version they like, so you can't look at them and decide what to use based on that. Version numbers are only interesting to people who already use something. 2) Some of the software that is listed has important drawbacks that should be listed here (only backs up databases, needs to run in part on Unix) because those are important for a comparison. 82.139.87.10 ( talk) 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Telecine Guy 03:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.55.86 ( talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Many programs say they don't support certain platforms, but this may be misleading. For example, Symantec's NetBackup server software runs on Unix or Windows, but the client software runs on Mac OS X [6]. This isn't reflected in the table and may be misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Wall ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article distinguish between server platforms and client platforms? I just invested a bunch of time in BackupPC because this article says it supports windows, only to find that is client-only support and doesn't actually run on Windows. And since BackupPC is a server based system (doesn't require client software), it makes it all the more misleading. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.59.51.203 (
talk)
01:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
hello, I am the marketing manager for Siber Systems makers of GoodSync. Would it be possible to add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoodSync on this page as it is definitely a backup software? Sibersystems ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Sibersystems as per the templates, be bold and add it, but be aware of a possible conflict of interest. Cheers. -- Hm2k ( talk) 01:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be useful to know what media each of these backup software can back up on to, for example whether they can do tape backup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 ( talk) 08:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, I had removed attix5 but someone roll back my change. Attix5 is not a GPL software they use this list for make free advertising and I don't udertstand why it's listed in gpl.
( Madshiva ( talk) 14:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
Claims that Create Synchronicity could theoretically be rewritten to run on Linux and Mac OS X is far different from the current version actually running on those platforms. Most programs could theoretically be rewritten to run on other platforms. It appears from the project page that Create Synchronicity does not, in fact, run on those platforms. I am therefore removing updating the table to remove Create Synchronicity from the Linux and Mac OS X columns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.100.201 ( talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I did a typo on the comment section for Acronis.
Should have read "Acronis does NOT do CDP for filesystem. They do near-CDP for Exchange only". So basically no CDP by Acronis. They even have a little FAQ that defends their position.
Fabkins ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
I found an FAQ. It is here: http://www.acronis.eu/homecomputing/products/trueimage/#q3. It says:
Protection: Acronis Nonstop Backup provides continuous data protection, allowing recovery of your PC to any point in time.
So, it seems Acronis DOES support CDP. Now, if you please provide us with a source for your assertion, we'll be very grateful. Fleet Command ( talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I have tried them all and the following are my recommendations:
Windows 7 back-up Oakster for Windows XP Bounceback Express — Preceding unsigned comment added by Member8321 ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Should Bvckup be included? 24.87.50.111 ( talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently, there are two Wikipedia comparison lists wikilinked in the 'See also' section: Comparison of file synchronization software; and Comparison of online backup services. In my view, a third and a fourth Wikipedia list might usefully be wikilinked in the 'See also' section: List of disk cloning software; and Comparison of disk cloning software. Here are my two reasons for adding the third and fourth wikilists. First, the current entries in the 'List of disk cloning software' complement the current entries in the 'List of backup software' (as do the current entries in the two lists currently included in the 'See also' section). Second, the 'List of disk cloning software' (but, interestingly, not the 'Comparison of disk cloning software') includes Nero BackItUp, an example of commercial backup software for personal use that may come bundled with portable backup-drives, and arguably, therefore, should be included in the 'List of backup software' 121.222.201.200 ( talk) 12:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear editor, I would like to humbly request the addition of Automatic Backup to the list of Free Backup. Recently, this software made it to be within the first page of google when "Automatic Backup" search keywords. I would be an honor to be part of this great document of free backup. Best Regards and congratulations for such a incredible compilation of features and software. MarcoDFW ( talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Please correct the problem with the categorization of the software divisions. If one is to use Free as a category, the opposite is Paid. If one is to use Proprietary as a category, the other must be Open-Source. - KitchM ( talk) 03:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Main advantages:
Every file is saved with its md5 sum as its name, which means:
1) continuing correctness of content can be verified
2) on incremental backup, it handles renames and moves efficiently.
https://code.google.com/p/boar/
It was a long time before I stumbled across it, because it's not in this list.
59.101.38.129 ( talk) 10:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Feeling good sofar. Deduplicates variable blocks down to 4k, based on natural breaks in filecontent. OS linux and (though unsupported) Windows. I am unpacking and loading all my backups (300GB since 1994 zip, arj, bkf, eRecovery, tib) to one opendedup/dsfs volume. Access is integrated in the file explorer. I notice oversight and accessability. I think a lot will be deduplicated and total space will be less. For fast daily backups I use rsync -backup-dir=../inc.$inc, which backs up based on date-stamps. Perhaps more comments later.
UnTrueOrUnSimplified ( talk) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I am one of the authors of this paper were we compare the performance and system resources usage of Rsync, Rdiff-backup, Duplicity, Areca and Link-Backup. Should it be included in this wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurhe ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed to merge this page into Comparison_of_backup_software, any reason why they should be separate?-- TheAnarcat ( talk) 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I take it in good faith that the restrictions which have been placed on this article have been put there to maintain the quality of the article and keep the junk out. A better approach would be to allow entries that don't have their very own Wikipedia articles, but require that they must be verifiable to be included in this article. Make a requirement that entries must come with a reliable source. This way the article can expand more while still maintaining the quality, but without the severe limitation of "only Wikipedia articles allowed". " Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Notability guidelines are for the creation of articles, not for content within the articles. Verifiability and reliable sources are the appropriate guidelines for all content within articles including list entries. Also, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to "take ownership" of any article and create "special rules" for it even if they are the one who created it. We all have to follow the same rules on every article and once we post something, it no longer belongs to us, it belongs to the Wikipedia community. Huggums537 ( talk) 14:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: I suggest adding Bacula Enterprise Edition to the proprietary section of the page even though the open source community edition called Bacula is already in the first table. These are 2 separate products from 2 separate organizations, the licensing and codebase are completely different. Think Wikipedia users will benefit from knowing the alternatives.
Andrei Iunisov ( talk) 00:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
. Thank you!Regards, Spintendo 03:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
UrBackup, GPLv3, C++, Linux and Windows (client and server), macOS (client only) 77.185.80.28 ( talk) 14:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-06. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Insert non-formatted text here
The entries are now going either going in in random order or people are incapable of putting them in Alphabetically. Fabkins ( talk) 09:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Should there not be a section for online backup solutions like mozy.com ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.92.135 ( talk • contribs)
Proposed: Merge Managed backup providers into this page. That page would make a good section on this page and then we can have one fewer page full of spam links. -- Austin Murphy 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a link repository, and that's all this page was. I have merged the salvageable parts of this article to Backup software. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-02-22 00:10Z
For some reason, backup software is a popular category to spam. Everyone and their brother has apparently written a backup software package and wants to register it with wikipedia. Since these edits are being done nearly daily and there is no sign of them stopping, this page is probably the best place for them. Other wikipages dealing with backup software should wikilink here instead of enumerating a list of packages themselves. This page could possibly prevent a plethora of uninteresting stub articles about insignificant backup software packages. -- Austin Murphy 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be cool if we knew which operating systems the software was able to back up. Maybe its time we make a Comparison of backup software -- Krappie 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Which is correct? (I can see where an entry would appear more than once, just not a case where it is clearly categorized and then declared uncategorized.)
-- KevinCole 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think sections need to be improved. What differentiates a "large network" from a "small network?" Why is 'dump' not in 'for single machine?' -- Karnesky 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft Enterprise Data Protection is not listed as CDP, although it is mentioned in the first sentence of its article that it in fact is. Changing CDP status... Flegozoff ( talk) 02:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Any reason external URLs (which are meant to be fairly temporary--to promote stubs to be started) are now in a reference section? -- Karnesky 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone mind if rsync.net is added to the Managed backup service providers list? I was going to add it but I didn't know the wiki naming convention: RsyncDotNet or Rsync_Net_(website) or ...? Meonkeys 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Genie Backup Manager has been removed many times from the article and then re-added. Why should it or should not be in this list? Jeltz talk 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
... its merits / demerits aside? -thanks, Onceler 03:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Odin [3] should appear in the list of Open Source backup software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.118.5 ( talk) 15:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A while ago I removed redlinks as a good measure of non-notability and spam links, but was reverted. Another editor has just performed the same task. Let's discuss the best way forward. -- Steve (Stephen) talk 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
rdiff-backup is mentioned in the rsync article. I am surprised it doesn't have an own article yet considering how well-known it is. It is even included in the core Ubuntu distribution (i.e. not universe) [4]. I took the liberty of re-adding it to the article after seeing the number of Google hits [5]. Jeltz talk 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned it up again. -- Hm2k ( talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I see this article is still attracting redlink spam. A reminder to newer editors that this article only lists notable entries with their own articles. Please don't add or restore entries without articles - they will be removed. Greenman ( talk) 00:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added HeatSoft Automatic Sync but I think someone deleted it, I find it very powerfull, and cost/effective. I suggest to add it for small networks, because it is used by known companies as: Lockhead Martin, Hyundai, Audi and even the US ARMY. The link is: http://heatsoft.lugermedia.com/en_index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.159.158 ( talk) 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Quick background first. My name is Brian Gardner. I do currently work for Yosemite. Before that, I worked for EMC and Legato helping drive NetWorker development.
All I'd like to see here is some note about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapeware (Yosemite's original product) and Yosemite Backup (Tapeware's new name). Tapeware has been around in some form since prior to 1990. Yosemite itself was founded in 1996 (but I need to verify that date). Yosemite Backup has 1000's of customers who have paid in excess of US$500 (not worth what it once was, I know) for the Master Server alone, so it does seem to deserve a place on this list.
I'd be happy to write it up, and add to other backup software content as well. But I don't want to get flamed by the community here because they think I'm just doing this to promote myself or my company. The kind of info I'm thinking of is provenance, such as is available on wikipedia for backupexec, platform coverage, etc.
So, folks, what's the best way to add Yosemite info and possibly add to NetWorker background as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.117.61 ( talk) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I currently use this service and find it to be extremely good. It's a new service taking the UK by storm. I'd already added a total recall page to the Managed backup service providers section of this article before I noticed a requirement to discuss it's addition. Is their any objection to it? Kashiabu ( talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The consensus formed above is to link to articles about software. External links to software aren't appropriate (read WP:EL for more information about external links) and links to articles about companies that make software don't belong in this article. If a backup software program or package is notable enough to have its own article, then it should be linked here. Otherwise, this list will become a linktrap. Brilliant Pebble ( talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a good starting point for a discussion, and I kind of agree with the view of "if there's no article on the software itself, it's not worth linking". *However*, unless the whole article follows this principle, I have an issue with my BakBone link being removed. First of all, BakBone more or less only produces NetVault, which is mentioned in the company article, but secondly, almost all of the links *already* point to software companies. Examples are "CommVault Systems", "Computer Associates", "SonicWall", "UltraBac Software", and "Unitrends". That's more than a third of the links in that section. So until someone can come up with a reason why *those* links are valid and fixes the article accordingly, I'm going to put BakBone back in there - and once I've got time, I'll write an article on the product. It's certainly more valid than a link to a Wiki article that doesn't even exist to a company (InMage Systems), and while I'd be hoping to provide full articles for all the links mentioned, I'd rather have company links than no information at all for the time being. Quark999 ( talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2010 Jan 10: Western Digital Smartware should be put on Wikipedia to compare to other software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.154.48 ( talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've realized that some of the products on this page are not necessarily "Backup Software". Especially things like CDP solutions - given the amount of links, maybe grouping by "Large", "Small" and "Single" isn't enough, and in some cases not even appropriate. Maybe we should instead focus on certain functionality aspects? Although I fear that might open the flood gates for more discussions on whether or not a certain software package supports that feature or not... Quark999 ( talk) 23:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not add these to the list because they don't necessarily have Wikipedia pages yet:
Many excellent free ones here: http://www.tech-faq.com/free-backup-software.shtml -- Espoo ( talk) 20:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What about
would be nice to see products delineated for backing up live machines (Symantec? ComVault?)-- Billymac00 ( talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd point out Cobian Backup is listed under open source, although it does at least put "freeware" as the license. I don't want to mess around on the actual page, but somebody with a little more knowledge of wikipedia standards &c. might look into it?
Cobian 11 is NOT OPEN SOURCE, in fact the author license is Luis Cobian and he is now selling the source code. -- 98.206.129.63 ( talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The table needs information on the requeriment of server software running on the server of storage. It is important, becasue many users are given a network space for backup, witouth a backup service running, and it makes impossible to use a client-server architecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.109.103 ( talk) 12:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
1) The version column is useless. The projects can think up any version they like, so you can't look at them and decide what to use based on that. Version numbers are only interesting to people who already use something. 2) Some of the software that is listed has important drawbacks that should be listed here (only backs up databases, needs to run in part on Unix) because those are important for a comparison. 82.139.87.10 ( talk) 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Telecine Guy 03:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.55.86 ( talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Many programs say they don't support certain platforms, but this may be misleading. For example, Symantec's NetBackup server software runs on Unix or Windows, but the client software runs on Mac OS X [6]. This isn't reflected in the table and may be misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Wall ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article distinguish between server platforms and client platforms? I just invested a bunch of time in BackupPC because this article says it supports windows, only to find that is client-only support and doesn't actually run on Windows. And since BackupPC is a server based system (doesn't require client software), it makes it all the more misleading. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.59.51.203 (
talk)
01:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
hello, I am the marketing manager for Siber Systems makers of GoodSync. Would it be possible to add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoodSync on this page as it is definitely a backup software? Sibersystems ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Sibersystems as per the templates, be bold and add it, but be aware of a possible conflict of interest. Cheers. -- Hm2k ( talk) 01:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be useful to know what media each of these backup software can back up on to, for example whether they can do tape backup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 ( talk) 08:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, I had removed attix5 but someone roll back my change. Attix5 is not a GPL software they use this list for make free advertising and I don't udertstand why it's listed in gpl.
( Madshiva ( talk) 14:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
Claims that Create Synchronicity could theoretically be rewritten to run on Linux and Mac OS X is far different from the current version actually running on those platforms. Most programs could theoretically be rewritten to run on other platforms. It appears from the project page that Create Synchronicity does not, in fact, run on those platforms. I am therefore removing updating the table to remove Create Synchronicity from the Linux and Mac OS X columns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.100.201 ( talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I did a typo on the comment section for Acronis.
Should have read "Acronis does NOT do CDP for filesystem. They do near-CDP for Exchange only". So basically no CDP by Acronis. They even have a little FAQ that defends their position.
Fabkins ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
I found an FAQ. It is here: http://www.acronis.eu/homecomputing/products/trueimage/#q3. It says:
Protection: Acronis Nonstop Backup provides continuous data protection, allowing recovery of your PC to any point in time.
So, it seems Acronis DOES support CDP. Now, if you please provide us with a source for your assertion, we'll be very grateful. Fleet Command ( talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I have tried them all and the following are my recommendations:
Windows 7 back-up Oakster for Windows XP Bounceback Express — Preceding unsigned comment added by Member8321 ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Should Bvckup be included? 24.87.50.111 ( talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently, there are two Wikipedia comparison lists wikilinked in the 'See also' section: Comparison of file synchronization software; and Comparison of online backup services. In my view, a third and a fourth Wikipedia list might usefully be wikilinked in the 'See also' section: List of disk cloning software; and Comparison of disk cloning software. Here are my two reasons for adding the third and fourth wikilists. First, the current entries in the 'List of disk cloning software' complement the current entries in the 'List of backup software' (as do the current entries in the two lists currently included in the 'See also' section). Second, the 'List of disk cloning software' (but, interestingly, not the 'Comparison of disk cloning software') includes Nero BackItUp, an example of commercial backup software for personal use that may come bundled with portable backup-drives, and arguably, therefore, should be included in the 'List of backup software' 121.222.201.200 ( talk) 12:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear editor, I would like to humbly request the addition of Automatic Backup to the list of Free Backup. Recently, this software made it to be within the first page of google when "Automatic Backup" search keywords. I would be an honor to be part of this great document of free backup. Best Regards and congratulations for such a incredible compilation of features and software. MarcoDFW ( talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Please correct the problem with the categorization of the software divisions. If one is to use Free as a category, the opposite is Paid. If one is to use Proprietary as a category, the other must be Open-Source. - KitchM ( talk) 03:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Main advantages:
Every file is saved with its md5 sum as its name, which means:
1) continuing correctness of content can be verified
2) on incremental backup, it handles renames and moves efficiently.
https://code.google.com/p/boar/
It was a long time before I stumbled across it, because it's not in this list.
59.101.38.129 ( talk) 10:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Feeling good sofar. Deduplicates variable blocks down to 4k, based on natural breaks in filecontent. OS linux and (though unsupported) Windows. I am unpacking and loading all my backups (300GB since 1994 zip, arj, bkf, eRecovery, tib) to one opendedup/dsfs volume. Access is integrated in the file explorer. I notice oversight and accessability. I think a lot will be deduplicated and total space will be less. For fast daily backups I use rsync -backup-dir=../inc.$inc, which backs up based on date-stamps. Perhaps more comments later.
UnTrueOrUnSimplified ( talk) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I am one of the authors of this paper were we compare the performance and system resources usage of Rsync, Rdiff-backup, Duplicity, Areca and Link-Backup. Should it be included in this wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurhe ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed to merge this page into Comparison_of_backup_software, any reason why they should be separate?-- TheAnarcat ( talk) 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I take it in good faith that the restrictions which have been placed on this article have been put there to maintain the quality of the article and keep the junk out. A better approach would be to allow entries that don't have their very own Wikipedia articles, but require that they must be verifiable to be included in this article. Make a requirement that entries must come with a reliable source. This way the article can expand more while still maintaining the quality, but without the severe limitation of "only Wikipedia articles allowed". " Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Notability guidelines are for the creation of articles, not for content within the articles. Verifiability and reliable sources are the appropriate guidelines for all content within articles including list entries. Also, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to "take ownership" of any article and create "special rules" for it even if they are the one who created it. We all have to follow the same rules on every article and once we post something, it no longer belongs to us, it belongs to the Wikipedia community. Huggums537 ( talk) 14:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: I suggest adding Bacula Enterprise Edition to the proprietary section of the page even though the open source community edition called Bacula is already in the first table. These are 2 separate products from 2 separate organizations, the licensing and codebase are completely different. Think Wikipedia users will benefit from knowing the alternatives.
Andrei Iunisov ( talk) 00:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
. Thank you!Regards, Spintendo 03:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
UrBackup, GPLv3, C++, Linux and Windows (client and server), macOS (client only) 77.185.80.28 ( talk) 14:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)