Roman Klesel wrote:

>> Roman,
>>
>> Do you get to keep a backup set on something other than the T1 units?
>> (and I don't mean tape).
>
> I don't really understand what you mean here.
> We do an RMAN Backup to a NFS mounted Filesytem (another point that I'm
> very suspicious about.

Why? What do you think Oracle is doing internally? True we used to be
advised not to NFS mount ... but that was before substantial
improvements in the technology.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

In message <1075443006.598594@yasure>, Daniel Morgan
<damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> I've also come to the point where I think backing up to tape is a
> ridiculous waste of time and money. These days you can back up to hard
> disks far faster and for the same money. Fill a disk, pop it out,
> replace it with another. Recycle hard disks not tape.
>

Yes, and don`t you look SO clever when there is a real disaster (i.e. the
building catches fire.) There have been 3 times in my career when I have been
glad for offsite backups. Once the computer room floor collapsed, another
time there was a breakin and several servers were stolen and another time
they tried to steal from the server room by ram raiding it causing extensive
damage. You do tape backups and send them offsite (unless you are careless
of course.)

Regards
John Gardner

In message <1075476338.536329@yasure>, Daniel Morgan
<damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Why? What do you think Oracle is doing internally? True we used to be
> advised not to NFS mount ... but that was before substantial
> improvements in the technology.

Nobody ever advised against doing backups to an NFS filesystem, just against
putting the datafiles etc on them. It's quite a reasonable way to transfer
your backups to another server.

Regards
John Gardner

John Gardner wrote:

> In message <1075443006.598594@yasure>, Daniel Morgan
> <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>I've also come to the point where I think backing up to tape is a
>>ridiculous waste of time and money. These days you can back up to hard
>>disks far faster and for the same money. Fill a disk, pop it out,
>>replace it with another. Recycle hard disks not tape.
>>
>
>
> Yes, and don`t you look SO clever when there is a real disaster (i.e. the
> building catches fire.) There have been 3 times in my career when I have been
> glad for offsite backups. Once the computer room floor collapsed, another
> time there was a breakin and several servers were stolen and another time
> they tried to steal from the server room by ram raiding it causing extensive
> damage. You do tape backups and send them offsite (unless you are careless
> of course.)
>
> Regards
> John Gardner
>

There is no hurdle I am aware of that prevents sending hard disks off
site using the same technology as that used with tapes ... a shipping
carton. ;-)

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

John Gardner wrote:

> In message <1075476338.536329@yasure>, Daniel Morgan
> <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>Why? What do you think Oracle is doing internally? True we used to be
>>advised not to NFS mount ... but that was before substantial
>>improvements in the technology.
>
>
> Nobody ever advised against doing backups to an NFS filesystem, just against
> putting the datafiles etc on them. It's quite a reasonable way to transfer
> your backups to another server.
>
> Regards
> John Gardner
>

If I was unclear that is what I was trying to say. Oracle now NFS mounts
datafiles internally and advises others to do so as well. I was not
refering to backups. Sorry for any confusion.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

I'm not so sure that I want John working at my site. Seems to be a bad
luck charm.....

> There have been 3 times in my career when I have been
> glad for offsite backups. Once the computer room floor collapsed, another
> time there was a breakin and several servers were stolen and another time
> they tried to steal from the server room by ram raiding it causing extensive
> damage.

I can understand that a computer room floor collapsing can cause damage
to your backup tapes, provided that they were involved in the
catastrophe. But if someone stole servers or caused physical damage to
the servers, how did that preclude your use of the onsite backups?

Brian


--
================================================== =================

Brian Peasland
dba@remove_spam.peasland.com

Remove the "remove_spam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good. Now pick two out of
the three"

NFS Mounts internally ?

In the corporation or the database ?
"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:1075735676.506554@yasure...
> John Gardner wrote:
>
> > In message <1075476338.536329@yasure>, Daniel Morgan
> > <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>Why? What do you think Oracle is doing internally? True we used to be
> >>advised not to NFS mount ... but that was before substantial
> >>improvements in the technology.
> >
> >
> > Nobody ever advised against doing backups to an NFS filesystem, just
against
> > putting the datafiles etc on them. It's quite a reasonable way to
transfer
> > your backups to another server.
> >
> > Regards
> > John Gardner
> >
>
> If I was unclear that is what I was trying to say. Oracle now NFS mounts
> datafiles internally and advises others to do so as well. I was not
> refering to backups. Sorry for any confusion.
>
> --
> Daniel Morgan
> http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
> http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
> damorgan@x.washington.edu
> (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
>

Telemachus wrote:

> NFS Mounts internally ?

Meaning ... at Oracle itself.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1075751391.651822@yasure>...
> Telemachus wrote:
>
> > NFS Mounts internally ?
>
> Meaning ... at Oracle itself.

I would be very suspicious of a conclusion that results from "well,
the vendor does it." They might have more resources to deal any
problems than, say, just me all by myself, as well as management that
takes a benign view of the expected amount of difficulties with
software and hardware.

And personally, I've seen NFS silently screw up plain old datafile
copies. There seems to be some point near saturation that things go
bad, without actually admitting things are bad. TCP, even. Your
mileage on bald tires in an ice-storm may vary.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"If you look at the Bible, about half of the people Jesus chose to be
his disciples were fishermen, and fishermen are the biggest liars in
the world." - Bil Lepp, Methodist pastor, five-time champion of the
West Virginia Liar's Contest.

Roman Klesel <rupa@firemail.de> wrote in message news:<401A0079.8020808@firemail.de>...
> Daniel Morgan wrote:
> > Sybrand Bakker wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:29:27 -0800, Daniel Morgan
> >> <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> It works just fine. Let the SAN or NAS handle the problem. Once
> >>> you've written to the head ... the rest can just be ignored.
> >>>
> >>> With RAW we got rid of file systems. With 10g even the volume
> >>> management can go away. It is a brave new world ... every 5 years or so.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you mean this seriously, or are you just being cynical?
> >> To me the proposed configuration looks like it has been designed by
> >> someone who is either just released from a mental asylum or is a bean
> >> counter (or both)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
> >
> >
> > Seriously.
> >
> > With NetApp or EMC ... the one's I'm familiar with ... once you've
> > written to the head you can just ignore it ... questions about
> > stripping, mirroring, RAID, etc. are irrelevant. The head takes full
> > responsiblity for reading, writing, and recovery.
> >
> > I've also come to the point where I think backing up to tape is a
> > ridiculous waste of time and money. These days you can back up to hard
> > disks far faster and for the same money. Fill a disk, pop it out,
> > replace it with another. Recycle hard disks not tape.
> >
>
> Hmmm...!
>
> So there seems to be a quite spread out spectrum of opinions about this.

:-)

>
> My main 2 doubts in this whole setup are:
>
> 1) The storage System (althogh it has redundant components) remmains a
> single point of failure for all 3 instances: RAC1, RAC2 and shadow.

Find out the vendor's uptime guarantee. If it is orders of magnitude
better than any of the other hardware, that's difficult to accept, but
once you do, multiply out the failure times of everything else, and
worry about the real problems. Which of course, usually involve
system monitoring and software bugs.

>
> 2) Does such a storage system prevent I/O contentions effectively
> between REDLOG ARCHIVELOG and DATA/TEMP File aktivity?

It doesn't prevent anything, but certainly moves the bottlenecks
about, sometimes in a non-intuitive manner. You can only determine it
empirically with some judicious stress-testing.

>
> BTW. We also use RAW devices ... what a hassle ...

That can be fixed easily enough :-)

>
> Regars Roman

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/u...1b1zubkis.html