> Typically one does not jump too many versions ahead. Weren't you aware of
> previous versions in that many years?
>

Yes so true but, despite my pleas, the powers that be at the site did not want to change anything. And now, they are having memory problems.

> And gbak didn't produce any error message?

No 2.5 version of backup just process as normal.

> If you didn't get any error with the other methods, I wonder if you are
> ignoring some warnings you may have gotten with this second method. Ideally,
> it should not fail, but many changes have happened between v0.94 and v2.5
> and gbak may or may not fix everything.

This is what I thought, but record counts and ad hoc visual checks indicate alls well. Although, I can not do a complete compare of the data. The only difference from old database to new was an increase in file size; which I expected.

>

> Metadata may not be as clean as wanted.
> Worse, metadata may not be 100% reliable. I mean, some adjustments in the
> way some automatic triggers are defined may produce surprises (automatic
> triggers are those that implement views' check option, cascade referential
> integrity and check constraints). The new versions are also more strict in
> the validations they perform and the DSQL they accept.
>
> Try to extract metadata and see if it makes sense.
>

Shall do. Thanks for your helpful comments.