Hypervisor, hypervisor - who's got the best hypervisor?
-
@Dashrender said:
I will never buy Unitrends (at least not at this company). It's just to darned expensive.
That said, I really like Veeam, and I think it would actually save me a fair amount over my renewal costs from AppAssure Replay, after I consolidate everything.
I've seen Dustin's posts about backups, and I just don't want to deal with that!
I love the continuous forever backups that I currently have with Replay, and makes me grimmis a little knowing that Veeam wants you to do a full backup on a regular schedule.
Don't want to deal with what?
-
The XO backups seemed pretty simple. Was it complex?
-
Don't forget there are agent-based vendors too. StorageCraft, for example, works fine on XS and gives you pretty much everything that you are looking for.
-
@scottalanmiller Not in the least, my biggest pain was getting CentOS up and running because I hadn't done it before.
-
Originally Dustin could only get full backups, no incremental/differential ones. I see that has been solved by using XO.
-
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Don't forget there are agent-based vendors too. StorageCraft, for example, works fine on XS and gives you pretty much everything that you are looking for.
And I have that today with AppAssure Replay. I can get agents for Windows and Linux. But their cost is really high. Veeam smokes them in this space.
One of the things that AppAssure Replay 4 had (I don't think 5 does - but have to check) was the ability to actually use the VM during a restore process. While it was slow as molasses, it was an option if you had to get something back online fast. though I'll admit I don't need that feature.
-
@Dashrender said:
Originally Dustin could only get full backups, no incremental/differential ones. I see that has been solved by using XO.
Oh, I thought his "solved by using XO" was the painful experience that you were referring to. You were referring to a previous attempt that he had made before XO.
-
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
You can build the full XO from source without paying anything.
-
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
he is using the free version. XO came on here and made a point that no features are locked to the paid version. They are truly FOSS and everything is available for free if you set it up yourself and run without support.
-
@Dashrender I am still currently producing Fulls using NAUBackup for my production VM's. Because and only because I haven't completed the XO build with proper equipment.
It works, but takes up way more storage. Also it's free.
XO (from the sources) is free, and has Delta functionality. I'll likely be disabling the NAUBackup Crontab job shortly once I get this XO build up to what I find comfortable.
But you should totally check out both, they each have their own merits.
-
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
The free version.
-
@coliver said:
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
You can build the full XO from source without paying anything.
It's not so much "build" from source as "deploy" from source. It isn't C that needs to be compiled.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@Kelly said:
@DustinB3403 were you able to do your backups with the free version of XO, or did you buy it? The pricing seems a bit high at a glance, but I haven't really evaluated it closely.
You can build the full XO from source without paying anything.
It's not so much "build" from source as "deploy" from source. It isn't C that needs to be compiled.
Right, that makes sense.
-
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
It counts as building it when you double click to install right?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
I am living in the Windows world right now... apps ready to go from the internet are installed. Like I said I can see your point and will use the correct terminology going forward.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Important because deploying from source just means "copying". It's not scary or anything. It is how lots of enterprise software, including the one that we are talking on, are installed today. It's nothing like getting a tarball and having to install a compiler and set flags and whatnot like people would think. It's a standard and very business type of installation methodology.
Ah... see that's what I would call building an application. I can understand the technical difference though.
You call copying "building"? Like if you download an app ready to go from the internet, you call it "building"?
You do have to type npm build
