Olivier,

> >> So yes, there is incremental backup support in NBackup.
> >> 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!

>
> Sean, you surely have missed the question mark in my post.

No, I saw the question mark.

> The more complex some software piece is or any engineering design is,
> the more weak it is, very generally speaking.

The FB engine is very complex; that does not mean that it is weak.

I don't think that "weak" is the word you meant to use, in the context:
weak == poor quality.

> It is then fair to question wether the new NBackup system meet

real-life

> expectations in terms of robustness.

I agree. It is completely fair to ask these questions.

But performing a real-life review of any functionality, it is unfair to
ask questions which suggested that the function is poorly designed.

Since you said "weak" this is what I took from your post and reacted to.

> 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.

We aren't running in production, yet. We have it deployed on our main
development server, on which we run 10-12 client databases.

It is our plan to deploy a private v2.0 build to a selected client site
in the next 1-2 months, and then deploy more broadly. (The build will
not have any private functions, it will just be built from a very, very
well tested copy of the HEAD)

> For NBackup to be a real bonus to Firebird, it will need more than
> documentation. It will need useage case scenarios...

I could not agree more strongly.


Sean