Re: Minimizing backup induced downtime

sybrandb <sybrandb_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> I really don't know why you are dismissing RMAN, without even having
> read the documentation sufficiently.

I'm not dismissing it. I'm seriously thinking about employing RMAN, but right now I see the disadvantage that the backup time and thus also the downtime will be larger.

> If you are convinced you have a 'better approach', I suggest you stay
> in the Stone Age of Shell Scripts and stop bothering this forum.

You're wrong. I'm not convinced. To me, it just seems like the shell script approach is better, as it is a) more flexible and b) "faster" (ie. less downtime). But maybe I just think this, because I'm so much used to this approach.

> Obviously, RMAN can cope with the 'split-mirror' technique you
> described,

RMAN can deal with files and data it doesn't know about? Can you be so kind and provide a pointer to documentation?

> but you obviously don't want to hear that,

There's just one thing: That you're obviously wrong in assessing what I want to hear. I'd like to get suggestions on how to make the backup approach better. With what I described, the approach doesn't seem to be better.

> as you already
> have dismissed RMAN, without even using it.

What makes you say so? Say, can you actually also try to be helpful or are you always out to humiliate people?

Alexander Skwar Received on Thu Jul 12 2007 - 07:21:15 CDT