in SQL Server 2000, if I try to copy a live database I get an error
message. Why isn't the case in Firebird? Even if the possibility to corrupt
the original file is very very small but the possibility to have a damaged
copy is much higher why lead users to this method instead of forcing them to
use backup/restore?

Vahan

-----Original Message-----
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Nando Dessena
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:23 PM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] Connection authorization failure


Ann,

A> Copying can products a corrupt copy, and copying the copy back over the
A> original will produce a mess, but to the best of my understanding (a
A> large caveat) file copy programs will not damage the original or affect
A> concurrent actions on the database.

thanks, that's my expectation as well.

The reason I am currently into this is I am receiving more corruption
reports (coming from unattended/unmanaged installations, some of which
even on Win9x) than I'd like, and I would like to exclude that an
action customers seem to perform more often that they should, that is
copying databases, trashes their originals.

Ciao
--
Nando Dessena
http://www.flamerobin.org




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Visit http://firebird.sourceforge.net and click the Resources item
on the main (top) menu. Try Knowledgebase and FAQ links !

Also search the knowledgebases at http://www.ibphoenix.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firebird-support/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
firebird-support-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]