I think 2 is the number of backups kept from the backups on prog. close
If you use the Auto-backup it seems to keep all backups (at least if they are timestamped which is the case here)
It seems to recognise if there have been no changes made to an open file (mines open all day - with a backup every 10 minutes - but it's only saved a few today which ties in with changes I made to the file today)
Thank you, Tom. I don't know where it states '2' backups; I must have missed that..
Anyway, I use auto backup every x minutes & I must have 20-30 bkup files. They are time stamped. It doesn't really bother me as they are going on a 1T drive. I was just wondering. It seems to me it would be nice to be able to instruct IQ to delete after a given # & start all over again. Just saves me a trip to the cleaners every few weeks or months.....
- " if IQ automatically deleted all timestamped backups except for 1 per day after n days"
- " if one could limit the number of backups saved - either by quantity, or by age "
Jan : of course one has to make backups. As for me, I never had "real" database corruption, after more than 1.5 year. Twice a field and maybe something else acted weird, but it was corrected (so no real corruption : no data was lost).
Did somebody confirmed that your data was corrupted, or is it your own conclusion ? IMO such affirmations need to be confirmed...
Well, I wrote about it both times. The first time -- as memory serves -- I was told this was highly unlikely. The 2nd time there was no answer so I've just gone about doing what I needed to do to get back to business w IQ. As I said in my post, I think IQ is a stable program but stuff happens -- whether it's because of the machine I am on, my own ignorance, my OS or combination of programs running simultaneously. I'm glad nothing has happened to you in 1.5 yrs & I hope that continues for another 15 yrs. I just know what I've experienced & you'll just have to take my word for it (or not), it was more than just acting weird. I just ignore those things mostly & move on. Have a nice wknd.
Sometimes, what is thought of as corruption is IQ just not behaving as it was, due to some setting change or some field-value change. There is also a great need for some simplification in the menus, and the UI in general. This would go a long way in helping users.
When other users reported corruption, they sent me a copy (cleaned up or personal stuff if necessary) and I was always able to find the issue. It was never database corruption per se, but there is no doubt that users were not seeing the info that they were expecting. The IQBase was corrected and sent back. I've offered that to you, Jan, and you opted to use a backup as there were too much personal information in the IQBase. A good choice, especially, since sending files / finding / fixing the issue, etc does take a few days, and during this time, you're without your information.
Information is precious and I'm grateful to all users that trust me enough to manage it using a beta software.
Armando, just a word of caution, I have had to make use of these backups on at least two occasions to work around dB errors, corruption or whatever name anyone wants to put to it. From his posts / reactions to some of my posts, it seems that Pierre finds it difficult to accept the possibility of these corruptions but it has happened. This is not to say these events are common. To the contrary, IQ seems very stable despite it's quirks & anomalies but even it happens once, those backups can be a lifesaver. At least, that's been my experience maybe because of the machine I'm on, my own ignorance or some other circumstance. That's why I've become a backup freak over the years.
Comments