RE: Full vs Incremental
- From: "Storey, Robert \(DCSO\)" <RStorey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:33:40 -0500
Nope, no problem with space or time constraints.
From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:32 PM
To: Storey, Robert (DCSO)
Cc: oracle-l-freelists
Subject: Re: Full vs Incremental
Unless that half hour is hurting or the space is a pain for the backups,
I'd do fulls, much simpler to understand your recovery options. Talking
of which, schedule a few more unusual tests - cloning, PITR, restore to
a host with diff disks and so on. Symantec used to do plain
restore/recover really well, but nothing else well at all.
On 10 Sep 2010 19:22, "Storey, Robert (DCSO)"
<RStorey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, my backup person and I were having a discussion. We use
symatnec's software to do the backup of our oracle database. It in turn
is issuing the rman scripts.
Our database is about medium size, probably about 100gig. The
full backup takes about 35 minutes.
We are doing fulls every night. We used to do traditional hot
backups, but changed to rman and using fulls.
So, do I keep doing fulls every night, or do I shift to schedule
of full's with incremental in between? Are there pro's or cons' to
either setup?
Thanks
Other related posts:
