He's right that it is one more file and it takes longer, but everything is a trade-off. Full backups take more time, more backup space and more network bandwidth if you're backing up over a network than incrementals, plus require much more I/O on your production database (compared to incrementals with change-tracking file in 10g). Applying an incremental will certainly be faster than applying a bunch of redo, but not as fast as starting with a more recent full backup. In 10g there is also the option of incrementally updated backups - a hybrid that is probably the best of both worlds if I understand it correctly but I haven't actually tested it yet. I wouldn't worry too much about the incremental backup getting corrupted, shouldn't be a frequent occurrence - not any more likely than your full backup or archive log backups getting corrupted. I've been using incrementals for years and love them. Regards, Brandon Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.