Re: benefits of multiple switch logfile calls?

From: Frank van Bortel <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:05:15 +0100
Message-ID: <btkg48$dsf$1@news4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>

Paul Drake wrote:

> 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

Paul - make it happen. The more I get to know about RMAN, the more I like it. And me no DBA, even thought I know how to write it ;-)

-- 

Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Received on Thu Jan 08 2004 - 15:05:15 CST