Talk:Results of Amanda Users Survey 2006: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Dmitri Joukovski comments == | |||
* The 'demographics' of Amanda users are consistent with [[Results of Amanda Users Survey 2003]] | |||
* The 'demographics' of Amanda users are consistent with [[Results of Amanda Users Survey 2003 | |||
* I expected that respondents who have been using Amanda for more than 2 years would have a higher ratio of 'old' versions of Amanda. However, there is no difference in version distribution between all and 'old' users who are up to speed with Amanda progress. | * I expected that respondents who have been using Amanda for more than 2 years would have a higher ratio of 'old' versions of Amanda. However, there is no difference in version distribution between all and 'old' users who are up to speed with Amanda progress. | ||
* Relatively more 'old' users run Amanda server on Solaris and BSD. 'New' users prefer Linux distributions for Amanda server. | * Relatively more 'old' users run Amanda server on Solaris and BSD. 'New' users prefer Linux distributions for Amanda server. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:55, 22 January 2007
Dmitri Joukovski comments
- The 'demographics' of Amanda users are consistent with Results of Amanda Users Survey 2003
- I expected that respondents who have been using Amanda for more than 2 years would have a higher ratio of 'old' versions of Amanda. However, there is no difference in version distribution between all and 'old' users who are up to speed with Amanda progress.
- Relatively more 'old' users run Amanda server on Solaris and BSD. 'New' users prefer Linux distributions for Amanda server.
- I was surprised to see how many (23%) use Amanda to backup Oracle.
- I was even more surprised to see how many (62%) use Amanda to backup Linux e-mail.
- I expected that users with more clients and more total amount of data would recover files more often. However, the observed positive correlation of 0.32 between the amount of data and the number of restores per month is actually not that strong.