Re: Restoring & recovering in NOARCHIVELOG

"Quarkman" <quarkman_at_myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:oprsvxhqmhr9lm4d_at_haydn...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:35:45 GMT, Jim Kennedy <kennedy-
> down_with_spammers_at_no_spam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > While this is true why not just put the thing in archive log mode. It
is
> > easier than doing all this.(posting on the group etc.)
> > Jim
> >
>
> Because not everybody can, or needs to, invest in the performance problems
> and disk resources which are associated with being in archivelog mode.
>
> If the database has the capacity to be completely recovered even when not
> in archivelog mode (which it does) then people should know about that so
> they can make informed choices.
>
> But if the point is 'if your data is so valuable that you want to be able
> to completely recover it under all hardware failure circumstances, why not
> be in archivelog mode?', then I agree. It's the only *guaranteed* way of
> doing it.
>
> ~QM

Oh come on. Disk drives are cheap and if the data is worth less than the disk drives why back it up? I don't have performance issues with keeping all my databases in archivelog mode. Remember keeping the database available when needed is part of performance and if it is down (when needed) then performance is 0.

Jim Received on Fri Jul 25 2003 - 18:58:13 CDT