Re: Full vs Incremental

I second this.
--
Kamus <kamusis@xxxxxxxxx>

Visit my blog for more : http://www.dbform.com
Join ACOUG: http://www.acoug.org



On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Niall Litchfield
<niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


Other related posts: