Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>
> At 07:32 PM 4/25/2003 -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >Of course, assuming we want to backup the total 24 Terabyte he has in
> >2-3 years in less than a day, if we have a month to take a backup we can
> >save some money on the backup solution.
>
> If you take the month approach, the filesystem/db snapshot has to stay in
> place for a full month whilst the backup is occuring. Do-able, but can be
> stressful e.g. if something goes wrong after trying for a full month...
>
> But anyway he said off-line backups aren't that important - I gather that
> recreating the data is not totally impractical. Still 16TB, ouch.
I think a scenario like that, where one has a relatively small
percentage of really updated data and a huge portion of constantly
growing, is a good example for when it might be appropriate NOT to store
everything in one database.
Depending on the rest of the requirements, it might need 2PC and using 2
databases. The updated database then could be backed up by normal means
while for the constantly growing one you just archive the redo logs.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #