Re: benefits of multiple switch logfile calls?

From: Paul Drake <drak0nian_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 6 Jan 2004 15:25:26 -0800
Message-ID: <1ac7c7b3.0401061525.76a28aa0@posting.google.com>

Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:<ii4mvvon00qunuu73ptm71q9m2c0m64lo7_at_4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:01:44 GMT, Don Seiler <don_at_seiler.us> wrote:
>
> >If anyone has a backup script that they use for 9i (not using RMAN) I'd
> >love to see it.
>
> In 9i you must be nuts to prefer your own backup script over RMAN.

Sybrand,

call me nuts.

I haven't read this thread, but I felt compelled to jump on your posting.
If you had:

- working scripts (with 8.1.7) that required no modification for 9.2
- a small oltp database(s)
- familiarity with the tried and true existing backup / restore /

recovery

then the added overhead of developing/testing/training/certifying RMAN backups may not be worthwhile. people's mileage varies. Yes, it would be nice to have both physical and RMAN backups running in parallel (along with export if one has the space and cycles to burn).

I eventually plan to use RMAN. At the present time, I have no business requirement to do so. When I have a larger read mostly database (currently in development) I'll leverage RMAN to reduce the backup set size of tablespaces that can't quite be made read only.

as always, "it depends".

Pd Received on Tue Jan 06 2004 - 17:25:26 CST