On Sun, 2003-09-14 at 14:17, Christopher Browne wrote:
> After a long battle with technology,martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar (Martin Marques), an earthling, wrote:
> > El Dom 14 Sep 2003 12:20, Lincoln Yeoh escribió:
> >> >At 07:16 PM 9/13/2003 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
[snip]
> Certainly there are backup systems designed to cope with those sorts
> of quantities of data. With 8 tape drives, and a rack system that
> holds 200 cartridges, you not only can store a HUGE pile of data, but
> you can push it onto tape about as quickly as you can generate it.
>
> <http://spectralogic.com> discusses how to use their hardware and
> software products to do terabytes of backups in an hour. They sell a
> software product called "Alexandria" that knows how to (at least
> somewhat) intelligently backup SAP R/3, Oracle, Informix, and Sybase
> systems. (When I was at American Airlines, that was the software in
> use._
HP, Hitachi, and a number of other vendors make similar hardware.
You mean the database vendors don't build that parallelism into
their backup procedures?
> Generally, this involves having a bunch of tape drives that are
> simultaneously streaming different parts of the backup.
>
> When it's Oracle that's in use, a common strategy involves
> periodically doing a "hot" backup (so you can quickly get back to a
> known database state), and then having a robot tape drive assigned to
> regularly push archive logs to tape as they are produced.
Rdb does the same thing. You mean DB/2 can't/doesn't do that?
[snip]
> None of this is particularly cheap or easy; need I remind gentle
> readers that if you can't afford that, then you essentially can't
> afford to claim "High Availability?"
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
"(Women are) like compilers. They take simple statements and
make them into big productions."
Pitr Dubovitch
