Dmitry,
> Tuesday, October 8, 2013, 2:37:57 PM, you wrote:
>
> KR> Working with FB 2.5 on Windows 64 bit, how does Nbackup level 0
> KR> perform compared to a high-performance copy utility like FastCopy?
>
> as I see on my desktop nbackup -b 0 is 2-3 times slower than lock/file
> copy/unlock. I
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:37:57 +0200
Kjell Rilbe wrote:
> Working with FB 2.5 on Windows 64 bit, how does Nbackup level 0
> perform compared to a high-performance copy utility like FastCopy?
>
> I'm asking because my DB is 80+ Gbyte and both the database and the
> backup are currently on the same
Dmitry Kuzmenko skriver:
>
> Hello, Kjell!
>
> Tuesday, October 8, 2013, 2:37:57 PM, you wrote:
>
> KR> Working with FB 2.5 on Windows 64 bit, how does Nbackup level 0
> perform
> KR> compared to a high-performance copy utility like FastCopy?
>
> as I see on my desktop nbackup -b 0 is 2-3 times sl
Hello, Kjell!
Tuesday, October 8, 2013, 2:37:57 PM, you wrote:
KR> Working with FB 2.5 on Windows 64 bit, how does Nbackup level 0 perform
KR> compared to a high-performance copy utility like FastCopy?
as I see on my desktop nbackup -b 0 is 2-3 times slower than
lock/file copy/unlock. I think th
Working with FB 2.5 on Windows 64 bit, how does Nbackup level 0 perform
compared to a high-performance copy utility like FastCopy?
I'm asking because my DB is 80+ Gbyte and both the database and the
backup are currently on the same physical disk. FastCopy works with
large chunks to minimize tim