Re: Recovery practice

Holger Baer wrote:
> Frank,
>
> what you and as far as I can see every body else responding
> to this thread seem to miss, is that the OP is
> a) on 10g
> b) he is keeping a database *COPY*
>
> The script he is using is (with the exception of the tags)
> e.g. in the course material to the 10g New Features Overview.
>
> What it does basically is keeping a (almost) current copy of
> the database in the backup location by merging the incremental
> backups into the database copy. So his scenario infact is the
> fastest way to recover from media error:
>
> switch [database| datafile <datafile> |tablespace <tablespace>] to
> copy;
>

New, I admit, to me.

> Instead of restoring files from a backup location rman adjusts
> the content of the controlfiles to point to the backup file location
> and recovery starts.

Ditto - new to me
>
> Now I've got no 10g database in production use (the usual
> customer constraints apply ;-) ), so I can't comment on the
> practical use of this approach, but the OP is testing this
> which is very good because he learns new things.
>
> Many of the replies he got might scare him or anybody else following
> this thread from using this new feature, only because no one
> really understood what he is doing.

I hope not; read my last two lines: get used to it... you're doing OK.
>
> Now I might wrongly accuse you and others as being ignorant, but
> after following the thread sofar, this seems to be the case at
> least with regard to this new feature of 10g.
>

Well - you are correct as to my knowledge of this. I do need to (and actually *am*) play around with 10g RMAN.

> Also, with regards to the timing of incremental backups: With
> 10g using the change tracking file feature, actually the incremental
> backup might be faster, although again, I had no reason sofar to
> test this (but if SHMBO allows, I'll give it a shot tonight).

That's the whole point I was trying to make, too - with a FULL backup being so fast, I see no reason to skip to incremental, and loose time in the recovery process. Will see what a COPY does :)
>
> Presumably I've got this terribly wrong and I should apologize in
> advance, but this is how I received this thread.
>
> Cheers,
> Holger
>
> PS: You just happened to be the last one in this thread at the time of
> writing, so nothing is particularly aimed at you or your contributions.
Appreciate the feedback.
Comments inline...

-- 
Regards,
Frank van Bortel