Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Restoring & recovering in NOARCHIVELOG

Re: Restoring & recovering in NOARCHIVELOG

From: Jim Kennedy <kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_no_spam.comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:34:57 GMT
Message-ID: <lPsUa.149389$ye4.103201@sccrnsc01>


While it is true you can spend a fortune on disk drives; it is also true that you can over pay for anything. In comparison to other hardware disk drives are cheap. You are over complicating the issue with the separate devices etc. Just stripe and mirror everything. Much simpler, better performance.(and certainly more bang for the buck) Archive log gives you some more options that non-archive log does not for recovery. Only a fool does not put their production OLTP database in nonarchive log mode. Jim

-- 
Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
with family.  Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign.  You can figure
it out.
"quarkman" <quarkman_at_myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:oprswvavxgzkogxn_at_haydn...

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:58:13 GMT, Jim Kennedy <kennedy-
> down_with_spammers_at_no_spam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "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
>
> Depends on your disk drives. The canard that disk space is cheap is just
> that: a lie.
>
> > 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.
>
> Then you are lucky. You have to re-think your online redo log placement so
> that archiver is not reading from the same disk as LGWR is writing to. You
> have to worry about LGWR hanging because ARCH can't write the next redo
> log... There are many performance issues that need to be considered. Can
> they not be solved?? Of course they can. Would you be an idiot to pretend
> they don't exist as issues? Yup.
>
> > Remember keeping the database
> > available when needed is part of performance and if it is down (when
> > needed)
> > then performance is 0.
>
> Entirely agree. Which is why it's impportant to know that you can restore
> one file and recover it from the online logs, even though you're not in
> archivelog mode, and not have to restore the entire database.
>
> ~QM
>
>
>
Received on Sat Jul 26 2003 - 05:34:57 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US