Re: Back up options

Bernard Peek <bap_at_shrdlu.com> wrote in message news:<$CtcRnA9Utl+Ew+P_at_diamond9.demon.co.uk>...
> In message <b04c1374.0304110038.1bd51268_at_posting.google.com>, chris
> <xnuus_at_hotmail.com> writes
> >Hi,
> >
> > Heres my problem which Im sure someone has experience of. I have a
> >database that quite simply because of the importance of the data needs
> >to be backed up after every transaction, how do I achieve this.
> >
> >options:
> >
> >1. maybe a little crude, I could email the records to an account after
> >after every transaction using a simple script
> >
> >2. have two concurrent databases running in two separate machines
> >writing to both rolling back on connection problems.
> >
> >3. Mirror the database, whats mirroring, I'm using Mysql, not
> >microsoft SQl server but can make the leap to the darkside if deemed
> >necessary.
>
> Switching to SQL Server would solve the problem but it might not be
> necessary.
>
> The way that SQL Server would handle it is by logging each transaction
> against the database. This is a standard feature of SQL Server. The log
> file is usually stored on a separate drive to the data file so that a
> single hardware failure doesn't take out both of them. You also have the
> option to have the transaction data shipped across a network to another
> machine where it can be used to synchronise another database.
>
> Lastly, you have the option of using clustering. That would entail
> having multiple machines connected together so that if any of them fail
> the rest take up the load.
>
> You don't mention whether high availability is a priority. Is the
> priority to avoid losing data or to keep the database system running?
> Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

Thanks Bernard, the priority is to avoid losing data, we can go down for as long as we want :) but just as long as we return with what we went down with. Okay we can do nightly backups quite simply but It would be a diaster if we actually lost data from the previous backup to the time when the hardware failed. Its a really tough one because there wont be an awful lot of data but Its important data. I guess using the second database elsewhere is the best route to take but Im trying to do this as cheap and simple as possible. Received on Fri Apr 11 2003 - 23:18:04 CEST