Re: RMAN and split mirrors

What is the bottleneck with rman currently?

  Network? - use BCVs and mount the split mirrors on a backup server that is locally attached to the tape drive(s) / library.

  EMC Luns? - use BCVs (split) to reduce the hit on your production Luns.

  Tape spooling? - well then maybe you should use BCVs (split maybe twice a day) as 'snapshots' which could be used quickly to restore the datafiles. Might be a good idea to mount these BCVs to another host just to give them a dbverify check. If all looks good, then you could, in an emergency, re-synchronise from the BCVs if the production instance needs to be recovered.

  There is lots more to it when you get right down to it but these could act as start-off points for some discussions.   

  Secondly, I can't pick up on what you mean about using or not using RMAN. Surely the usefulness of RMAN compared to home-grown shell scripts is a no-brainer?

  D.P.

Connor McDonald wrote:
>
> I'm currently working at a place where a year or so ago they went RMAN
> the whole hog, ie, all databases backing up via Rman thru NetBackup. It
> all works a treat - that is until now - we've just built a terabyte-ish
> system which rman takes a little too long to backup ...
>
> .. Since we're in bed with EMC, the resolution has been deemed to be
> Timefinder, BCV etc - that is, a glorified version of split mirrors.
>
> A peak thru the Rman doco indicates that using split mirrors with Rman
> is a case of (surprise surprise) "put tablespace in backup mode, split
> the mirror, take tablespace out of backup mode"...
>
> Under this scenario - Rman hardly gives me anything that *not* using
> Rman would...Does anyone have anecdotes to dispute this conclusion ?
>
> Cheers
> Connor
>
> --
> ==============================
> Connor McDonald
>
> http://www.oracledba.co.uk
>
> "Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue..."
Received on Wed Jul 25 2001 - 19:01:14 CDT