Re: Standby servers and incrementally updated backups
Robert Treat <xzilla <at> users.sourceforge.net>
2007-07-01 17:19:52 GMT
On Friday 29 June 2007 13:47, Erik Jones wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Erik Jones wrote:
> >> On Jun 25, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 16:00 -0500, Erik Jones wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>>>>> If I'm correct, then for large databases wherein it can
> >>>>>> take hours to take a base backup, is there anything to be
> >>>>>> gained by
> >>>>>> using incrementally updated backups?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you are certain there are parts of the database not touched
> >>>>> at all
> >>>>> between backups. The only real way to be sure is to take file
> >>>>> level
> >>>>> checksums, or you can trust file dates. Many backup solutions
> >>>>> can do
> >>>>> this for you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wait, um, what? I'm still not clear on why you would want to run a
> >>>> backup of an already caught up standby server.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, misread your question.
> >>>
> >>> While you are running a warm standby config, you will still want
> >>> to take
> >>> regular backups for recoverability and DR. These are additional
> >>> backups,
> >>> i.e they are not required to maintain the warm standby.
> >>>
(Continue reading)