Can anyone tell me what harm I may have caused by reverting to a backup (.bak) of my file without having disconnected from a replica? No problems were immediately apparent even though I subsequently synchronized my file with the replica, but I have this uneasy feeling....
Thanks

Thanks for the reply and sorry for  posting under important topics. I would move my post if I could.
 
It is comforting to hear that it is OK to use a backup without first having synchronized the master with the remote or replica file.
 
I am however somewhat puzzled because I have read that when the master and remote  files are both online and ecco has updated both files with any changes that may be necessary, those changes are then removed from the .ecg file which keeps track of outstanding changes.  The changes are now reflected in the master and remote files and no longer in the .ecg file. If I now replace either the master or the replica with an older version the two files will no longer be the same. The .ecg file does not know that I have replaced the file and therefore cannot keep track of any differences between them resulting from my replacement. Will those differences then persist indefinitely?

Quote from vicente on 08/25/09 at 09:47:42:

 
the ECG is a FULL copy of your file.
 
the .bak file contains last update time.
 
The master does a good job of filling in changes  if not extensive.
 
in theory there can be issues of very extensive changes,  but have never tested the limits-- you can.
 
create a test file w/ a sync slave.
 
 
save a bk1
 
then make dramatic changes, deletions, etc. etc.
 
update slave
 
then open the bk1  (after rename)
 
 
does it auto-update ?
 
 

Am pretty sure (99.94%) changes are kept in ECCO file and .ecg is master .ecb holds master ole objects.
 
if your ecg file LOT smaller than ecco,  side .eco has been corrupted *or* has OBJECTS (held in .ecb file!)
 
 
Experiment and will see cools stuff!