Anything you put to tape will be slower especially the restore. Autoload is very fast in EEE, but the negatives: 1) you should load in the proper order if you have any constraints defined.
2) You also will need to verify each load's messages file to make sure nothing is missed. 3) I haven't been able to run more than one autoload at a time with 12GB + tables, so parallelism is another factor in the timeliness of loads. The ideal for critical databases, ftp full/incremental backups offsite, then ftp logs every few minutes. Mirror your disks and/or employ a failover solution. Since all of this failover & the cost of offsite servers/disk vs. recoverability windows from tape have a big cost differential, your clients & managers unfortunately need to determine the backup solution best for your company. Weighing the cost of the database being down for seconds vs months against risk needs to be analyzed & presented with care (and I would get it down on paper to secure your job & sanity should another 9/11 hit). BTW: Have you played around with your configuration to ensure your backups are running their fastest? ie: parallelism=<number of nodes> on the backup command intra_parallel parm (set to on if only process running (good of 1 better than good of many)) increase backbufsz (restbufsz for restores) increase util_heap_sz reduce buffpage, sortheap, sheapthres & numdb to avail memory for above -----Original Message----- From: Gert van der Kooij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:49 PM To: db2users Subject: Re: [DB2EUG] Restore vs Reload Hi, Maybe you can use incremental backup? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "db2users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:56 PM Subject: [DB2EUG] Restore vs Reload > Hi All, > I realize this question has been posted before, but I > have not seen much in the way of response, so I am > reviving the question. I have a large data warehouse > with controlled batch updates. Currently I am doing > full weekly backups, however it is very expensive in > terms of time and resources. Some data warehousing > collogues have recommended using a series of db2looks > in combination with table exports to backup up my > data. Basically they are saying in a disaster > situation, it would be faster to reload a table, or > the whole database than to restore from tape. I also > have restore concerns since we use archive logging, > but non-recoverable loads. As a DBA I would prefer to > have a regular full database backup, but see no reason > to backup hundreds of GB's of indexes when they can be > recreated. Remember we store all load file after > loading. Does anyone use a similar unconventional > backup strategy that they are willing to share? For > those who feel that need more specifics to comment, > here they are. > > UBD-EEE 7.2 FP7 > AIX 4.3.3 > Tape backups > Over a TB of data. > > I'm hoping to hear some thought on both sides of this > argument. > Thanks, > Mike Patterson > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ > - > ::: When replying to the list, please use 'Reply-All' and make sure > ::: a copy goes to the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). > *** To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** For more information, check http://www.db2eug.uni.cc > - ::: When replying to the list, please use 'Reply-All' and make sure ::: a copy goes to the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). *** To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** For more information, check http://www.db2eug.uni.cc - ::: When replying to the list, please use 'Reply-All' and make sure ::: a copy goes to the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). *** To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** For more information, check http://www.db2eug.uni.cc
