Horst Herb wrote: > On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Duncan Guy wrote: >> Our tech prefers the live backups of MSSQL, I have resisted the large > > Is that so? I dare suggest that your tech hasn't even tried. > > Firstly, Interbase can "shadow" a database onto a second server - live, all > the time, any database size. > > Secondly, the Firebase "gbak" utility can be fine tuned to backup "live" any > time you chose, into portable or proprietary format, fully scriptable, whole > database or part of it. Ours runs twice daily, once thereof while users > access the database, no slowdown perceived whatsoever. I cannot imagine what > it would leave desired that MSSQL backup utilities cater for ??? > > Horst
I would have to agree, Firebird is very solid and the live backups are great. Restore kills server performance but not a big deal. We have had a heavily used Firebird database that ran on a windows 2003 server for > 12 months with restarting the server. The windows partition was 2 small to allow windows update to work and as it was behind several firewalls we didn't do a windows update. We run on Linux and Windows and stability identical. The place it is behind is on multi cpu machines. You even have to turn hyperthreading off on xeon processors or it will run like a dog. The scalability is more limited because of this, but hopefully V2.5 or 3 will bring multiprocessor support. Interbase 7.5 (ie Borland) has multiprocessor support. You can install the "classic" version of firebird on Multi CPU machines and as long as you use database pooling its fine (As slow to startup a connection because it starts a new process) Andrew McIntyre _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
