Bareos Reviews

I use Bareos as a backup of files and virtual machines.

My company uses Bareos for file backup and not in production or real work scenarios. I didn't improve anything with the solution since it was used in a test environment, not a production environment.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the ease of installation it provides its users.

The virtual machine backup is an area with shortcomings that need improvement. Bareos doesn't function as a full-fledged backup solution for virtual machines.

In the future, I want to see Bareos function as a full backup.

I have been using Bareos for a year.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I haven't used the scalability features of the solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

The initial setup of Bareos was easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I use the open-source version of Bareos, which means I used the free version of the solution. I haven't used the licensed version of Bareos.

I recommend the product to those planning to use it as a backup of files and virtual machines.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

I use Gluster as a backup. In fact, my company has a product called xBackup, which is completely based on Gluster. It includes various tools and technologies for high-performance backup, including solid-state technologies and mechanical disks, among others. Additionally, I use various other technologies, such as Bareos, as part of my cloud backup solution.

Bareos allows users to recover certain types of information autonomously without waiting for technical support, which significantly improves our recovery times and overall efficiency. For example, in a ransomware attack scenario, it was very quick to recover around 600GB of critical information, thus minimizing downtime and maintaining business continuity.

Bareos offers encryption on the fly, compression on the fly, and a robust and stable configuration. It is based on standards, ensuring there's no vendor lock-in. It is very easy to monitor and scalable.

Improvement is needed in the graphical web administration tool. Although everything can be done via the command line, an improved graphical interface would be more comfortable. I've seen improvements over the past five years, so they are working on it.

I started with Bakula around 20 years ago but have been using Bareos for the past five years.

Bareos is very stable once configured correctly. It is stable across different environments, from small two-three machine setups to large environments with over two hundred machines.

Bareos is very scalable. I've deployed it in environments ranging from two to over two hundred machines in different geographical locations, and it works perfectly.

I've mainly used the community support and open documentation for Bareos, which has been sufficient. However, Bareos' commercial support is known to be very good and reasonably priced.

Positive

I used Bakula until it started to commercialize many valuable features. Due to this shift towards closed-source and licensed models, I switched to Bareos, which originated as a fork of Bakula, retaining open-source principles.

Initially, the setup is quite challenging. Once the philosophy of Bareos is understood and you configure the storage daemon, the director daemon, and the first client, deploying additional clients becomes very easy.

The open-source version of Bareos, along with their commercial support plans, offer very fair pricing and good value.

I recommend Bareos, both the open-source version and their commercial support plans, one hundred percent.