Re: Datawarehouse backup

Tim...

inresponse to your last comment. No. the powers that be, who hold the checkbook are only concerned w/ how much it will cost :-p

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:44:56 -0700, Tim Gorman <tim_at_evdbt.com> wrote:
> > As Scott mentioned, the dw database generates huge amount of
> > archivelogs The reason we are not running in archive log mode is that
> > the backup servers can't keep up with. That is why we decided to go
> > with NOARCHIVELOG mode.
>
> Somewhat reminiscent of Donald Rumsfeld's comment that "you go to war with
> the army you have". While it depends on the decisions and attitudes made by
> those in charge, one has to ask oneself if those decision-makers were
> provided with the right information by those who implement.
>
> (The analogy, of course, breaks down somewhat when one considers the
> constraints imposed by military discipline and the UCMJ, not present in
> corporate environments. But the politics and the personal dynamics are very
> similar.)
>
> Were decision-makers made aware of the risks of the present state of affairs
> (i.e. "backup subsystem insufficient" or "ETL processes need to be tuned")?
> Or, was this alternate solution presented without mention that the goalposts
> were moved as well?
>
> To put it another way, are the decision-makers (who have purchasing
> authority for a more robust backup system) aware of the *probability* of
> multi-day downtimes due to multi-Tb restores from an inadequate backup
> subsystem and more than a week's worth of ETL "catchup", which are not
> guaranteed to recover the database to the same state as before?
>
> Best of luck. Sincerely.
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>

-- 
Bryan S Wells - DBA Newbie
bunjibry_at_gmail.com
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l