| Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Re: Incremental Backups |
|---|---|
| Author | Olivier Mascia |
| Post date | 2004-09-14T22:30:14Z |
Bonjour Sean,
Le mardi 14 septembre 2004 à 21:53:42, vous écriviez :
certainly a hard job implementing that. And Nickolay is someone I met
with pleasure in 2003 in Fulda. I know some of his developer skills.
And appreciate the huge contributions Nickolay did and does. There
shouldn't be questions about that. I feel sad you understood me that
way.
The more complex some software piece is or any engineering design is,
the more weak it is, very generally speaking. It is then fair to
question wether the new NBackup system meet real-life expectations in
terms of robustness. I suppose you have at Broadview some success
stories to tell about NBackup. I have none yet because I couldn't yet
decide a customer to agree to run FB 2.0 codebase in production. And
any in-house testing does not compete with field useage reports. That
would then be very nice to read your experience. Fair or not fair, my
above question will be raised by serious business end-users
considering FB 2.0. For NBackup to be a real bonus to Firebird, it
will need more than documentation. It will need useage case scenarios,
and reports from users that it works up to their expectations.
bigger, I agree with you. By the way, my biggest ones (over 50 GB) are
not yet using Firebird... for backup reasons. :(
So NBackup or any other backup than good old gbak will be welcome.
Let me repeat my above statement : the initial post was not meant to
be unfair to anybody. If it is how it sounds, consider it withdrawn.
--
Cordialement,
Olivier Mascia
Le mardi 14 septembre 2004 à 21:53:42, vous écriviez :
>> So yes, there is incremental backup support in NBackup.Sean, you surely have missed the question mark in my post.
>> That's quite a complex scheme. Does this comlexity means it is weak ?
> That is GROSSLY unfair!
> Just because the scheme seems complex, does not mean that it is weak!
> I would have expected that you give Nickolay more credit, since heIt wasn't meant to lower the credit I give to Nickolay. That was
> provided some much need product enhancements.
certainly a hard job implementing that. And Nickolay is someone I met
with pleasure in 2003 in Fulda. I know some of his developer skills.
And appreciate the huge contributions Nickolay did and does. There
shouldn't be questions about that. I feel sad you understood me that
way.
The more complex some software piece is or any engineering design is,
the more weak it is, very generally speaking. It is then fair to
question wether the new NBackup system meet real-life expectations in
terms of robustness. I suppose you have at Broadview some success
stories to tell about NBackup. I have none yet because I couldn't yet
decide a customer to agree to run FB 2.0 codebase in production. And
any in-house testing does not compete with field useage reports. That
would then be very nice to read your experience. Fair or not fair, my
above question will be raised by serious business end-users
considering FB 2.0. For NBackup to be a real bonus to Firebird, it
will need more than documentation. It will need useage case scenarios,
and reports from users that it works up to their expectations.
> The problem of backup is complex, especially for large databases.Absolutely.
> It is one thing to have a 50MB database, is it another to have one whichAs my typical real DB is in the range 5 to 15 GB with some much
> is 10GB or 100GB in size.
bigger, I agree with you. By the way, my biggest ones (over 50 GB) are
not yet using Firebird... for backup reasons. :(
So NBackup or any other backup than good old gbak will be welcome.
Let me repeat my above statement : the initial post was not meant to
be unfair to anybody. If it is how it sounds, consider it withdrawn.
--
Cordialement,
Olivier Mascia