From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 4 12:20:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA15520 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:20:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.netcetera.dk (root@sleipner.netcetera.dk [194.192.207.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14912 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:18:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from leifn@image.dk) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mail.netcetera.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with UUCP id VAA25009 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 21:14:46 +0100 Received: by swimsuit.swimsuit.roskildebc.dk (0.99.970109) id AA04047; 04 Mar 98 21:16:20 +0100 From: leifn@image.dk (Leif Neland) Date: 04 Mar 98 09:02:00 +0100 Subject: Re: SCSI Bus redundancy... Message-ID: <4bf_9803042116@swimsuit.swimsuit.roskildebc.dk> References: Organization: Fidonet: Swimsuit Safari. Go for it. To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 04 Mar 98 02:09:53 Simon Shapiro (2:234/49.99) wrote to All regarding Re: SCSI Bus redundancy... in area "freebsd-hacker" SS> I wrote a white paper at Oracle some years ago, claiming that SS> databases over a certain size simply cannot be backed up. I SS> became very UN-popular very quickly. In you moderate setup, you SS> already see the proof of corectness. A company I know has the production database in one location, and a backup database in another. The backup-database operates in "incremental restore" mode (for lack of a better word), and receives the redo-logs from the production database over a dedicated network link. So the backup-database is only a few minutes behind at most. Leif Neland leifn@image.dk --- |Fidonet: Leif Neland 2:234/49 |Internet: leifn@image.dk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message