hum sorry forget the remarks on ontape since i forgot to read

that you ran out of 16 GB...--->> do a fragmentation strategy...
use HPL.

Superboer.

Superboer schreef:

> ontape has the ability to warm restore dbspaces (this requires that you
> also backup
> you log.logs!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> so if you make your dbspaces not too big you could look at that.
>
>
>
> i assume you are using char mode raw devs, if cooked, it can really
> hurt performance
> when restoring. the filesystemcache is trashed in that case....
>
> remove data based on time.... have a look at fragment a table based on
> a col
> with date info..... detach tables; dropping unneeded is far faster then
> delete from
>
> And yes use HPL (a.k.a. Nuke Obstacle tool)
> if you need to setup a fragment strategy for big tables!!
>
> Superboer.
>
>
> Tam O'Shanter schreef:
>
> > 133943152 pg - 286.29 GB
> > 6 physical disks mirrored.
> >
> > Ulritum 2 Tape Drive
> > 200/400 GB
> >
> > ontape, nightly full dump.
> >
> > Taper block of 512
> >
> > I have investigated the quality of the data and so far isolated upwards of
> > 70GB that can be removed from this system (time sensitive stuff that's over
> > 2 years old when we only need 13 months...).
> >
> > It would be nice to have a nonintrusive way of removing this data from our
> > system, and to this end I'm still investigating hpl (good idea right??).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > BTW...
> > You sir, are no clown.
> >
> > Tam.
> >
> >
> > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message
> > news:mailman.156.1162381899.29126.informix-list@iiug.org...
> > >
> > > Tam O'Shanter said:
> > >> Hello All,
> > >> We are encountering a situation where backups of our database take far to
> > >> long to complete (IMHO).
> > >>
> > >> Upwards of two hours to tape with a two hour restore time.
> > >
> > > How big is it? (Your database, I mean!)
> > >
> > > I have a client who backs up 110GB onto DLT in 20 minutes.
> > >
> > >> This is fine from a protection standpoint as it is the most complete
> > >> option,
> > >> however, I'm looking for something that would give us more agility.
> > >> For example, during a recent outage caused by running out of data pages
> > >> on
> > >> one particular table one of our options was to restore from tape, at a
> > >> cost
> > >> of two hours.
> > >>
> > >> Optimally, I would have liked to have been able to restore simply the
> > >> data
> > >> in the offending table to another disk/space etc without performing a
> > >> full
> > >> restore from tape.
> > >
> > > You should attend one of the many IIUG sessions on this topic. ;o)
> > >
> > >> What option would give me this flexibility (hardware independent)?
> > >> I say hardware independent because I was recently in a data center with
> > >> new
> > >> Net App gear capable (unbelievable as it sounds..) of fully restoring a
> > >> 1TB
> > >> Oracle instance in approximately 10 seconds ("flashing" a snapshot if you
> > >> will...).
> > >
> > > Have you considered something like an IBM ESS array which will allow you
> > > to fully restore a 1TB IDS instance in approximately 10 seconds? ?
> > >
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >
> > > onbar will allow parallel backups to improve speed of backup and restore,
> > > but there are all sorts of consequences of this. What mechanism are you
> > > using? What kind of tape are you backing up to? What block size are you
> > > using?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bye now,
> > > Obnoxio
> > >
> > > "... no bill is required as no value was provided."
> > > -- Christine Normile
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > > dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
> > > believed to be clean.
> > >