i'd say in most systems the hit would be no where near 30-40%. espoecially
if u have separate disks to archive to so that there is reduced contention
Birsan <adrianbirsan_at_sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:zvVT3.20276$1v5.258557_at_newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> One of the consultants that we are working with claims that their tests
have
> consistently shown that there is a significant performance hit when ORACLE
7
> (running on UNIX, different flavors, one of them being NCR UNIX), is set
to
> operate in archive redo log, as oposed to non archive redo log, mode (the
> performance hit is said to be 30-40%). This confuses me, because I had the
> obvious misconception that the only difference (as long as you do not
> actually issue "alter tablespace begin backup") is that you do not re-use
> the redo logs, but "archive" them, so that they can be used later in the
> recovery process. I certainly did not expect such a big hit, which
basically
> stops us from using normal on-line backup procedures, even though
> availability has to be 7x24. For performance reasons as well, the
consultant
> recommends not using replication either, which leaves us with the only
> choice of a proprietary application replication scheme, in order to
provide
> high availability and database maintenance capabilities (provided by the
> consultant). Can anyone confirm that these claims make sense?
> Thank you for your response!
>
>
Received on Wed Nov 03 1999 - 11:03:52 CST
