Re: question concerning backup, archive logs and recovery

"Jose Nicolau" <jose.nicolau_at_clix.pt> wrote in message news:3AC72298.FA19DE83_at_clix.pt...
> "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
>
> > I'll keep it short and sweet: No.
> >
> > And this a cracking demonstration of why housing two separate
 applications
> > within the one database is a really, really bad idea.
> >
>
> I desagree.
> You can have as many applications as you want with all data in one
 database.
> I said 'you can', not 'you should'...

No argument so far (but hold your breath). The subjunctive is very important in this discussion, however.

> If one application needs some parameter in init.ora that 'conflits' with
 the
> others applications, ok, it's a good reason to chose another database for
 that
> application.

Ah, so you actually agree with me then. Good. (Incidentally, log_archive_start *is* an init.ora parameter).

> More: O9i is intended to support, no only diferent applications, but from
> diferent companies.

Nice. Glad you know all about 9i, which is vapourware currently, and irrelevant to the discussion. If Unix ever got to the point of working as easily out of the box as Windows, I'd switch in a minute... but it isn't right now, so I won't. And 8i right now is not intended to support multiple applications in the one database, and so I won't force it to do so.

As for 9i, until it invents memory structures which mean you can access the one application without ANY impact on the second, then I will beleieve that support for different block sizes and the rest are clever cludges to satisfy the mass of loonies out there trying this stuff than a real addressing of the issues.

Silly me... that functionality is *already* available -different Instances, different databases.

>
> This reason, that we are talking about, is not a good example to change
> database.
>

Excuse me? One application doesn't need redo, but the other one does? And that doesn't qualify, according to you? You're stark, staring bonkers if you believe that. The redo subsystem is the absolute key to good performance. Knacker that, and you knacker the application. And ARCH churning away when it doesn't need to sounds like a good case of application knackering to me.

Regards
HJR
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
> >
> > "Petra Hein/Gerald Bauer" <Petra.Hein-Gerald.Bauer_at_t-online.de> wrote in
> > message news:9a1bag$2h4$04$1_at_news.t-online.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We have a database running in archive log mode.
> > > Is it possible to exclude specific tablespaces from archiving (i.e.
 all
> > > inserts, updates, deletes for these specific tablespaces should not
 produce
> > > archive log entries) ?
> > >
> > >
> > > The question arises, because we would like to have two completely
 different
> > > applications' data stored in one database (Each application has its
 own
> > > tablespaces.) :
> > >
> > > The first application is currently backed up by making consistent
 exports
 of
> > > specific users at specific times. There is not necessarily the need to
 run
> > > this application in archive log mode.
> > >
> > > The second application definitely must run in archive log mode.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gerald
> > >
> > >
>
Received on Sun Apr 01 2001 - 03:03:44 CDT