=> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:26:34 -0400, "Seay, Paul" <seay_pd AT NAPTHEON DOT 
COM> 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