RE: RE: NetApp (was utl_file

From: Satar Naghshineh <Satar.Naghshineh_at_irvine.mellesgriot.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:12:00 -0800
Message-Id: <10701.123727@fatcity.com>

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C05F08.69C31530
Content-Type: text/plain

I can appreciate and understand your statement. However, like you stated, it all depends on your environment. If you're running a database with 3 terabytes of data and indexes take up 900 GB of that data, and based on your business needs and capacity, you might just decide to recreate your index tablespace. Chances are that you won't need to recover, yet you're spending time/effort to backup something that can be recreated.

One must be open-minded about why a business decides to do what they do. Thanks for the e-mail.

This is based on the following URL:
http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3049.html

Regards,
Satar

Just in case if NetApp is reading this thread and to prevent myself from getting calls from them again:
The opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are the result of the elf that lives in my head and does not reflect those views expressed from NetApp corp.

"I picked the wrong week to give up cocaine" - Airplane

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	dgoulet_at_vicr.com [SMTP:dgoulet_at_vicr.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:32 PM
> To:	Satar Naghshineh; Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject:	Re:RE: NetApp (was utl_file_dir)
> 
> Satar,
> 
>     To some degree that is Oracle's suggestion as well.  BTW, you can add
> the
> online redo logs to that list.  The rational is that temp should not have
> any
> permanent objects therefore easier to offline drop & rebuild without
> having to
> take the DB down.  Likewise with RBS, although you do require some down
> time,
> but less than a restore.  Indexes are questionable especially in a DSS
> environment, one needs to weigh the time required to restore the files
> from tape
> & recover vs. the time it takes to rebuild the indexes.  Lets face facts,
> if it
> takes 8 hours to recover a lost index tablespace that is faster than an 18
> hour
> rebuild process.
> 
> Dick Goulet
> 
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C05F08.69C31530
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: RE: NetApp (was utl_file_dir)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

I can appreciate and =
understand your statement. However, like you stated, it all depends on = your environment. If you're running a database with 3 terabytes of data = and indexes take up 900 GB of that data, and based on your business = needs and capacity, you might just decide to recreate your index = tablespace. Chances are that you won't need to recover, yet you're = spending time/effort to backup something that can be recreated. =


One must be =
open-minded about why a business decides to do what they do. Thanks for = the e-mail.


This is based on the =
following URL:
  <A = HREF=3D"http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3049.html" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/3049.html</A></FONT= >


Regards,
 Satar


Just in case if =
NetApp is reading this thread and to prevent myself from getting calls = from them again:
 The opinions and =
views expressed in this e-mail are the result of the elf that lives in = my head and does not reflect those views expressed from NetApp = corp.

"I picked the =
wrong week to give up cocaine" - Airplane 

 
 
 
<UL>
-----Original Message-----
 From:   dgoulet_at_vicr.com [SMTP:dgoulet_at_vicr.com]
 Sent:   Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:32 PM
 <FONT SIZE=3D1 =

FACE=3D"Arial">To:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Satar Naghshineh; Multiple recipients of list =
ORACLE-L</FONT>

 Subject:       =
 Re:RE: NetApp (was =
utl_file_dir)


Satar,


    To some degree that =
is Oracle's suggestion as well.  BTW, you can add the
 online redo logs to that list.  =
The rational is that temp should not have any
 permanent objects therefore easier to =
offline drop & rebuild without having to
 take the DB down.  Likewise with =
RBS, although you do require some down time,
 but less than a restore.  =
Indexes are questionable especially in a DSS
 environment, one needs to weigh the =
time required to restore the files from tape
 & recover vs. the time it takes =
to rebuild the indexes.  Lets face facts, if it
 takes 8 hours to recover a lost index =
tablespace that is faster than an 18 hour
 rebuild process.
Received on Tue Dec 05 2000 - 16:12:00 CST