Re: Long running backups - OK?

True, it doesn’t specify the form. But backups are typically cheaper to store than paper records. Also, hand in glove with 7 year retention is the requirement to make sure certain records are deleted after 7 years. It’s much easier to mark data for deletion and run a delete or truncate command than it is to go out,locate, and delete paper or film records. Because of that, almost everyone does use backups rather than paper or film.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 27, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Tim Gorman <tim.evdbt_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but calling BS on that nonsense, simply untrue and utterly ridiculous no matter how you view it.
>
> Legislation and regulations call for retention of information for review during an audit, not "data backups". The laws cite neither backup nor recovery, just records and documents. Auditors are not interested in zeros and ones.
>
> Take for example: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8180.htm
>
>
>

>> On 1/27/18 10:50, Mladen Gogala wrote:
>> That is not entirely true. Some laws (SOX, HIPPA, PCI, Murphy) mandate 7 years of data backups. They do not mandate the ability to restore. Theoretically, you can have a 7 years old 9i rman backup of your database at the time and that is fine. Nobody mandates that you need to have a 9i instance to restore it to. So, if the regulators, and that's where the Murphy's law comes into play, do an inspection of your IT, you need to show them 7 years of backups.  Nobody will ask you if you can actually restore those backups. That is how backups can be important.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 01/26/2018 02:00 PM, Glenn Travis wrote:
>>> Any question about backups should really be converted into a question on restore and recovery, because backups don't matter, restore/recovery from those backups matters.
>> 

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l