"Cats" <ramwater@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:1188920265.200963.86750@g4g2000hsf.googlegrou ps.com...
> On Sep 4, 2:44 pm, Superboer <superbo...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> my 2 0.01
>>
>> i would not create a huge dbspace because of paralel backup and
>> restores
>>
>> if something is bad in that dbspace you will have a long reload
>> time....
>> so i would stick with a few(10+ ) not so big dbspaces....
>>
> We have one database in one instance, and only every do a level 0
> archive. Therefore we only every do a level 0 restore - and that has
> only happened once for the live system. So, to my way of thinking, we
> should be worrying about run-time performance as that is what it does
> early all the time. For doing a level 0 archive I can't see that
> loads of dbspaces is any better (faster) than one large one, but I
> could be wrong there.

Well, you *may* be wrong! If you use ontape then you're reasoning is fine.
But if you use onbar and a Storage Manager, or the provided ISM, you can use
onbar to take parallel backups across dbspaces. To take full advantage of
this you would need to spread your application across mutiple dbspaces and -
provided you have multiple backup devices - these can be done in parallel.