=> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:26:34 -0400, "Seay, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The INCREMENTAL command should have been obsoleted years ago with only a > compatibility and a new set of commands FULLBACKUP, UPDATEFULLBACKUP, and > PARTIALLYUPDATEFULLBACKUP put in its place so that customers would not be so > darn confused. The terminology incremental is just flat confusing. I spend > so much time explaining it to new users it is ridiculous. There have been > sales of TSM lost because of this confusion. I respectfully, but emphatically, disagree. Anyone who can understand a "Full / Update" can understand an incremental: It's a "Full / Update" on a file-by-file basis. It's simple enough that I find that many end-users get it during initial contact. I haven't yet had a problem with prospective admins. Maybe we've got different populations. It's even easier to explain if you begin with the usually-familiar backup scheme of 1) Do a full backup 2) Back up all files written more recently than the most recent backup. and illustrate the weaknesses of that approach. As for the name itself... There's a catch-phrase around my workplace: "Precision in language". Say what you mean, as precisely as you can manage. Standard english doesn't have a word or phrase that means: Heirarchically scan a filesystem, noting discrepancies between metadata present on the filesystem and metadata recorded in a database. Where the filesystem metadata differs from the database metadata, copy the file entities involved to a remote location, and update the database to reflect the current state of the filesystem So we invented one. Let's not replace it with a cute-and-fuzzy Public Relations word. It won't help the users understand a complex concept, if we dress it up as a simple one, and tell them to ignore all the corners. They'll just bark their shins on them. ("But I didn't change any of those files, I just 'touch'ed them!", 200G later...) Backups are an arcane subdomain of an arcane discipline. We do a disservice to present them as simple, unless we first -make- them simple. I haven't figured how to do that out yet. ;) - Allen S. Rout