Subject RE: [Firebird-Architect] Re: Services API
Author Leyne, Sean

> >So, you're left with a backup, which you thought was fine (no errors
> >were generated during the backup) but isn't worth the cost of the
> >space it occupies. There is a REAL CRIME!!
> This requires a system solution. Neither GBak nor NBak addresses how
> unconventional system table updates are propogated.


> >Further, there is a list of a half-dozen cases in the SF tracker
> >simple schema definitions result in databases which can't be restored
> >GBAK (I am working on fixes for a number of them)!
> These are bugs that are correctly being addressed. Surely you aren't
> arguing any piece of software with a less than perfect implementation
> should be dropped.

Not at all, I am saying:

- GBAK has its role/place, primarily as a data/schema migration tool --
yes it does backups as well.

- NBackup is the more 'correct'/ideal backup tool for day-to-day system
management purposes.

> It won't go to an incompatible ODS version. Firebird has had to live
> within the constraints of upwards compatible only changes because
> Borland screwed up the architecture.

Allow me to be clear: NBackup does not/will not do ODS/platform

It was not designed with that in mind.

It was designed with one single goal -- allow for a database to be
backed-up/restored as fast as possible.

In fact, the ability to support incremental backup was a side-benefit of
the implementation. In fact, Nickolay and I have discussed the
possibility of also supporting backup-set names, which could allow for
concurrent incremental backup schemes.

> >That is what NBackup does! A Level 0 NBackup is a clone/copy of the
> >database file.
> >
> >
> Good. Since I was never able to get any documentation on NBak, I've
> always been a little fuzzy on what it did. I presume the Firebid 2
> release notes have a full set of docs?

I need to check, but I don't believe they have been added (or provided).
I'll look at getting that done.

> But in the best of worlds, a physical backup has limitations.

Again, completely agree.