I think you're missing the point. In his scenario the backups do not reside on
the same physical 'server' (and we're well aware that the item 'serving' the
files may be a NAS). I've never run across a single auditor that would argue
to the contrary. Before you ask, yes that has included those complying with
both SOX and HIPAA, one of which used Deloitte as an external auditor. It's
not about how the data gets to it's destination, it's how it's stored that
matters.
On Jul 18, 2016, at 10:33 PM, Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/18/2016 11:14 PM, Seth Miller wrote:
Mladen, you'll be excited to learn that a new technology was recently
released just within the last 32 years called network file system that
allows you to mount a remote share to your local file system. You see, when
you copy the file to the share the file still looks like it's on the local
server, but don't let that fool you. It's actually on a different server
that could be feet or even tens of feet away, even though it looks like it's
on the local server...WHAT? You should see this bleeding edge technology
become more popular as technologists start to learn about it.
Having the database and backup on the same server is fundamentally unsound,
no matter how you spin it. Hopefully, you will not have to prove that your
company is SOX or HIPAA compliant and explain the great news about NFS to
Deloitte and Touche. That would be cruel. BTW, these days people normally
don't use "servers" to serve NFS shares, these days people use NAS. And no,
there was no private email exchange mentioning that abbreviation.
--
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
Tel: (347) 321-1217
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l