RE: Database Archive

From: Powell, Mark D <mark.powell_at_eds.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:54:51 -0400
Message-ID: <564DE4477544D411AD2C00508BDF0B6A1CE0AAAA@USAHM018.amer.corp.eds.com>

Jaromir, at least through IMS version 7 HSAM still exists. I suspect it will exist for as long as IMSDB exists.

to thread --
The inclusion of purge/archive processes to an application during the design phase is in my experience neither that difficult or expensive as some previous posters implied. Nor is it always necessary that such retrieval be on demand. Often a few hours to an overnight delay is fully acceptable for retrieving archived data. Each case of what is being archived, how likely it is ever to be retrieved, and how it needs to be viewed has to be considered to determine cost/benefit for the project. But archival is a valid consideration for performance, security, and legal reasons. The need for archival depends on the application, the data, and what management wants! The design should fit the business requirements and if the requirements call for archival then you need to find a way to handle the requirement in a cost efficient manner.

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of jaromir nemec Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:48 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: Database Archive

> For instance, one of the databases referred to is 100G is size.

The size is only one side of this problem. The growth (=velocity) is the important issue in both OLTP and (more) in DSS.
The discussed problem can be limited to the comparison of the cost of disc storage on one side with the cost of archiving (=should be much less) along with archiving and restoring overhead. (= more than compensating, as the integration and support is low)

As I know Bill Inmon propagated the "alternative storage" idea with some strong cost arguments. But I guess this is far from mainstream now. The main problem is the lack of support of transparent archiving in the database.

Today archiving solutions are

customised as part of the application (with high development costs)
using standard tools e.g. tape backups (in most cases the data could be restored to the application but at high cost)

The problem is not new, some 30 years ago in DL/1 you could store part of the database on tapes (HSAM = hierarchical sequential access method). But I'm not sure if this feature is still supported:)

3) Of course there are lot of ill designed solutions (non partitioned tables with "delete" archiving etc.) that could be tuned, but this is not the point.

Thanks,

J.Nem

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to:  oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tue Apr 13 2004 - 08:51:36 CDT