--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Alex Castillo <acr_korn@...>
wrote:

>
> Hello!
>
> I've read these comments about nbackup performance:

http://ibdeveloper.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-nbackup-or-online-dump-myth.html

>
> So, I'd like to ask you about experiences using this tool. Is that

slow on big databases? Is there a plan to optimize it?

Compared to gbak, it is much faster. I am not quite sure I understand
the rant. It just provides a safe way to file-copy the database file
by using secondary merge files. Of course you are going to encounter
speed problems if you move large files around. The same issues occur
whether that file happens to be made up of database pages or DVD ISOs.
Most database servers use SCSI RAIDs, not consumer level SATA drives.

Most large databases consist of mostly static data, that is the whole
point of incremental backups - you just backup the bits that changed
since your last backup. This appears to be a pretty special case where
the incremental backup takes just as long as the full backup. I
suggest you give it a try with your real database and compare the
speed difference between

* nbackup - full
* nbackup - incremental
* gbak
* file copy fdb while service stopped.

If you can't afford downtime, the first three are your only option. If
gbak takes too long, nbackup is the best choice.

Adam