| 1 |
Jeff Smelser wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 02 November 2005 05:47 pm, kashani wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So yes, if your db is 20 GB or less, what I mentioned will probably |
| 4 |
>>work without too much trouble. If your db is 100 GB or larger, you're |
| 5 |
>>likely spending enough on hardware and software to solve your issues |
| 6 |
>>that some vendor will offer to buy you flaming Tiki drinks so it's not |
| 7 |
>>all bad. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I hope you didnt take you all night to think of this, its really not that |
| 10 |
> good. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'm not sure how to take that and am a bit confused since you're the |
| 13 |
one responding six hours later. :) Or one of us is having mail issues. :( |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Attempts to flame each other aside though I will continue the thread |
| 16 |
hijack in progress, what are your options for incremental backups with |
| 17 |
any RDBM? My understanding is that you're pretty much dependent on some |
| 18 |
sort of snapshotting from either your expensive hardware (EMC), or |
| 19 |
expensive filesystem (Veritas) if you don't have a third party package |
| 20 |
or your db isn't fancy enough. Oracle seems to have made good progress |
| 21 |
with their RMAN stuff, but I couldn't say how robust that is or how it |
| 22 |
compares to the former. I'm sadly out of date with Oracle as I haven't |
| 23 |
been involved in any reasonably sized systems newer than 8i. |
| 24 |
I guess the question is what sort of functionality would you want out |
| 25 |
of Mysql? And as a followup, everyone and their mother with reasonably |
| 26 |
sized Mysql databases appears to use replication to do their backups, |
| 27 |
psuedo-incremental or otherwise. Is it just the extra hardware and disk |
| 28 |
that you don't like or something else? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
kashani |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives