Re: Difference Between RMAN Incremental and Full Backups - Driving me Nuts!
- From: "Jared Still" <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: david.barbour1@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:04:25 -0700
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:20 AM, David Barbour <david.barbour1@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Incremental backup (Level 1): System slows to a crawl. People complain.
> Jobs take hours longer than expected (it's like they don't even start until
> the backup completes). Statspack snapshot covering period when backup is
> running shows top 5 timed events as follows:
>
> ...
> What is the difference between disk access for the two types of backups?
>
Level 0 incremental (full)
Oracle fills the buffer, sends it to tape
Level 1 incremental
Oracle scans files looking for blocks. When the buffer is full
it is sent to tape
Here's what I suspect is occurring:
During the level 1 backup not a lot of changed blocks are being found,
and Oracle is reading through datafiles as fast as possible.
eg. io rates go up a lot.
When doing a level 0, there are many more waits when writing to tape,
and RMAN is not reading disk as often.
Could be that level 1 backups are also killing the read cache on your IO
system
due to RMAN scanning the datafiles with far fewer interruptions for tape
writes.
Possible solutions?
*Less frequent level 1 backups.
Determine how many archive logs are being generated between
Level 1 backups, perhaps you can rely more on the archive logs
for recovery and reduce the frequency of Level 1 backups.
This would be at the cost of recovery time however.
*Upgrade to 10gR2 and use Block Change Tracking
BCT was introduced in 10gR1, but was not fully baked until R2
--
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
Other related posts:
