From derby-dev-return-92078-apmail-db-derby-dev-archive=db.apache.org@db.apache.org Fri Dec 2 19:14:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CEF459469 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1116 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2011 19:14:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 1083 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2011 19:14:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 1076 invoked by uid 99); 2 Dec 2011 19:14:59 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:14:59 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.32.181.186] (HELO ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com) (216.32.181.186) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:14:51 +0000 Received: from mail218-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.246) by CH1EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.43.70.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:14:30 +0000 Received: from mail218-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail218-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3D63A04C4 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:14:30 +0000 (UTC) X-SpamScore: 0 X-BigFish: VPS0(zzc85fhzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:74.62.37.82;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:CPHUB1.canoga.com;RD:rrcs-74-62-37-82.west.biz.rr.com;EFVD:NLI X-FB-SS: 13, Received: from mail218-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail218-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1322853270336854_9516; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:14:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS025.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.242]) by mail218-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437522C0046 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:14:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CPHUB1.canoga.com (74.62.37.82) by CH1EHSMHS025.bigfish.com (10.43.70.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:14:30 +0000 Received: from CPHUB2.canoga.com (172.16.1.94) by CPHUB1.canoga.com (172.16.1.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.213.0; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:15:46 -0800 Received: from vserver1.canoga.com ([169.254.2.87]) by CPHUB2.canoga.com ([172.16.1.94]) with mapi; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:15:46 -0800 From: "Bergquist, Brett" To: "derby-dev@db.apache.org" Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:14:25 -0800 Subject: Question about online backup Thread-Topic: Question about online backup Thread-Index: AcyxJpsjVz0yD9zaTPOVnv+O72NxNw== Message-ID: <97EB699F861AD841B5908C7CA9C9565601CC37389A98@VSERVER1.canoga.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1307-6.500.1024-18554.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.128600-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_97EB699F861AD841B5908C7CA9C9565601CC37389A98VSERVER1can_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: canoga.com --_000_97EB699F861AD841B5908C7CA9C9565601CC37389A98VSERVER1can_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We currently use the SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_BACKUP_DATABASE procedure to perform = an online backup of the database. This has been working well. We are wond= ering however, if we can control the relative priority of this backup to ha= ve less of an impact on the normal concurrent operation of the database. Here is the use case. The system is being accessed and updated 24/7 and t= here is no down time. The customer wants to create a backup once a day. = There is no specific point in time that they are trying to capture so knowi= ng exactly which transactions are included or excluded from the backup is n= ot that important. They would use the backup only for a catastrophic failu= re to get "close" to what something was on a day and a higher level system = interacting with this one would replay anything necessary after restoral of= one of these backups. In the 5 years that the system has been running a r= estoral of a backup has never been necessary. What is important is that the online backup being performed does not advers= ely affect the normal operation of the system. There are plenty of CPU cy= cles and should be plenty of I/O bandwidth. This is an Oracle M5000 system= with 32 cores and 32 Gb of memory with mirrored drives using ZFS as the f= ile system. So what I was wonder is, is it possible to perform the backup at a lower re= lative priority than normal database operations. It is okay if the backup = takes longer, that is not a problem. Any guidance will be greatly appreciated. Brett --_000_97EB699F861AD841B5908C7CA9C9565601CC37389A98VSERVER1can_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We currently use= the SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_BACKUP_DATABASE procedure to perform an online backup= of the database.  This has been working well.  We are wondering = however, if we can control the relative priority of this backup to have les= s of an impact on the normal concurrent operation of the database.

 

Here = is the use case.   The system is being accessed and updated 24/7 = and there is no down time.   The customer wants to create a backu= p once a day.  There is no specific point in time that they are trying= to capture so knowing exactly which transactions are included or excluded = from the backup is not that important.  They would use the backup only= for a catastrophic failure to get “close” to what something wa= s on a day and a higher level system interacting with this one would replay= anything necessary after restoral of one of these backups.  In the 5 = years that the system has been running a restoral of a backup has never bee= n necessary.

 

What is important is that the online backup being performed = does not adversely affect the normal operation of the system.   T= here are plenty of CPU cycles and should be plenty of I/O bandwidth.  = This is an Oracle M5000 system with 32 cores and 32 Gb of memory with mirro= red  drives using ZFS as the file system. 

 

So what I was wonde= r is, is it possible to perform the backup at a lower relative priority tha= n normal database operations.  It is okay if the backup takes longer, = that is not a problem.

 =

Any guidance will be greatly appreciated.

 

Brett<= o:p>

= --_000_97EB699F861AD841B5908C7CA9C9565601CC37389A98VSERVER1can_--