Backup/restore differences between NE and OS versions

[dlochart]

Unfortunately we may opt to step down from the NE of Zimbra to the OS version. I have read some good information in other threads but I am still puzzled by one feature that I cannot get a grip on. When I look at the comparison between NE and OS versions to see what we will lose if we decide to move towards the OSS version. One item has me a bit confused and it is the backup/restore capability.

Online backup/restore
    Ability to backup/restore a single mailbox or set of mailboxes such that any mailbox not actively being processed remains online and accessible

At first I thought I lost all access to the zmbackup tools. I though this because I see a doc in the Wiki that explains how to backup the OS version. After reading the above piece again it sounds like I only lose the ability to backup/restore a mailbox while it is online.

Could someone please explain what I will lose in the realm of backing up and restoring if we switch to the OS version?

thanks

Doug

[Krishopper]

You have to shut down your zimbra services to get a consistent backup, and you cannot restore a single mailbox from backups, it's all-or-nothing.

[dlochart]

You have to shut down your zimbra services to get a consistent backup, and you cannot restore a single mailbox from backups, it's all-or-nothing.

Do you still get to use the zmbackup command and teh cron jobs or is all of that idsabled? I see in the Wiki backup plans using rsync. I am quite familiar with rsync so I have no qualms about using it but I am wondering about the nice zmbackup command.

thanks

Doug

[phoenix]

The features of zmbackup are an NE feature and not available in the OSS version of Zimbra, it's rsync and the scripts (or your own) on the wiki page.

[Ubuntu Warrior]

Do you still get to use the zmbackup command and teh cron jobs or is all of that idsabled? I see in the Wiki backup plans using rsync. I am quite familiar with rsync so I have no qualms about using it but I am wondering about the nice zmbackup command.

thanks

Doug

Be warned Doug that Zimbra slightly stretches the truth by claiming to be open source in that the organisation holds back some critical software (like backup and restore tools) for commercial gain. Why they don't focus on providing a proper oss solution and make money from support is beyond me.

Second warning, we are running the oss version and cannot get the backup/restore scripts to work effectively so I wouldn't put too much faith in the forum. Pity though, as the Zimbra product has great potential to take on MS Exchange. Guess that is highly unlikely to trump the profit motive.

Good luck with the move. Maybe wise to check out some other oss groupware options.

[phoenix]

Be warned Doug that Zimbra slightly stretches the truth by claiming to be open source in that the organisation holds back some critical software (like backup and restore tools) for commercial gain. Why they don't focus on providing a proper oss solution and make money from support is beyond me.

That's rather a misleading comment. The Open Source version is actually Open Source i.e. you can download it and build Zimbra from that. There are some additional featrures that are value added to provide functionality that's not in the OSS version and we charge a support fee for using those features. This is well documented on the web site and forums so there's nothing misleading about our position. That's the business model that Zimbra has chosen and it's never been hidden.

Second warning, we are running the oss version and cannot get the backup/restore scripts to work effectively so I wouldn't put too much faith in the forum.

The scripts on the wiki work quite well for backup and restore, I use them myself on my own Zimbra OSS server.If you think they are inadequate or don't do what you need then feel free to improve them and submit them to the community, that's what Open Source is all about isn't it?

Pity though, as the Zimbra product has great potential to take on MS Exchange. Guess that is highly unlikely to trump the profit motive.

How do you expect a company to survive without making a profit, is the phrase 'profit motive' something to be ashamed of?

[jholder]

David-

To call it a sham is not appropriate, and I suggest that you think before you post.

[Russianspi]

Source code's here. Doesn't get more open source than that. If there's a feature you think is missing in the open source version (like hot backup and restore), write the feature. You then have several options, from my understanding of the license: you can share it (best), horde it (worst), or sell the feature (as long as it doesn't use Zimbra code itself). If you sell it, we won't harass you about not being open source - it's your choice, and your right to make money on selling the additional functionality you worked so hard to code. Price it right, and I might even buy a copy!

[Ubuntu Warrior]

My previous title seemed to offend so felt I needed to post a correction. Don't want to get caught up in a philosophical debate about the open source movement as Karl can put it much better than I would ever be able (see his rant on open source with some refs to Zimbra rants.org » Blog Archive » When is Open Source not Open Source?).

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a world that wasn't driven by profit where people colluded in altruistic communities focused on helping each other and bettering the planet which we inhabit ... Oh well, I can dream can't I!

See, sometimes I do think before I post

[Russianspi]

OK, I agree, your most recent comment did seem more well thought through. As for the blog post, it made interesting reading, and indeed, I agree that the "Zimbra Powered" clause in the (now YPL) license effectively neuters any attempt to fork the product. That is, in fact, my primary objection to the YPL for Zimbra. (Note, however, that this is a purely philosophical objection - I'm not nearly bright enough to e able do anything with a software project of that magnitude.) As onerous as that clause might be, I'd disagree with Karl about it disqualifying Zimbra from properly using the term "Open Source". All of this however, which was the focus of Karl's blog post, doesn't seem to be your real issue with Zimbra.

Your real beef with Zimbra seems to be that it is a corporation (or now a subsidiary of a corporation) that seeks profit. Noticing your handle, "Ubuntu Warrior", I'd wager that you like Canonical's ideals more than Zimbra/Yahoo!'s. I do too. While I use Ubuntu on most computers that I own, and many that I am responsible for at work, too, I find myself wondering if Canonical can stick with its business model indefinately. How long can a corporation continue to loose money and stay in business? I hope that they can survive with their current business model, but I am sceptical.

While I agree that profit is not necessarily the ideal motivation for writing software (open source or otherwise), it is an effective one. Even Karl, in the comments on his post that you referred to, explains this:

Sure, it’s about community, among other things, but open source software also depends on corporate money, both private (VC) and publicly-traded. Much Linux kernel development is paid for by for-profit companies, acting in their own interests; OpenOffice.org is pretty much entirely funded by Sun; a ton of X Windows development is subsidized by corporations; Google both funds and releases a lot of open source software; the project I work on, Subversion, was started by and still receives significant development funding from CollabNet… Open source software would not be where it is today, nor would it be maintainable, without corporate resources. Actually, it’s been like that for a long time, it’s just that many users don’t realize it, I think.

So be anti-corporate, if you want, but don’t fool yourself: this wouldn’t be happening with purely volunteer labor. We left that world long ago.

As for companies that sell versions of open source software, that is a long list as well: MySQL's Enterprise Edition, Red Hat and Novell's SUSE Linux desktops and Servers. I could continue, but I think you get the point.

I think that no one supporting Zimbra intends to be belligerent, but it's easy to get defensive when someone starts attacking something that you have either worked hard on or just really like. Welcome to the Zimbra Forums!