Re: Logical log backups to non-rewind tape device

In article <Pine.BSF.3.91.970616095226.27401C-100000@kilimanjaro.dallas. herald.net>, Richard Stanford <richards@herald.net.REMOVE> writes >On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, David Williams wrote: > > >We've found the "known bug" in 5.05 that can corrupt archives. Why Informix >won't send out alerts on things like this... Aargh. But that's another rant >entirely. > There is an alert on the Techinfo Centre within their Web site. You need a valid Mainline SUpport ontrat to gain access to it though.. >Saying "run the latest version" is all well and good, but doesn't work for >us in many situations. Let me explain a little: > > We (the company I'm with (Dallas Systems)) develop and maintain warehouse > management systems, generally requiring 24x7 availability. Our customer > base, with a few exceptions (Heya, Bruce) is non-technical, at least in > the RDBMS/UNIX arena. > > Our product undergoes several months of internal testing, followed by a > long period of customer testing, before installation. This certification > process occurrs on a specific tool/engine/code release. > > - - - > > If we upgrade an engine, even if a tool upgrade is not needed, we will > re-certify our application and procedures. This is no small endevour, > and we'll only do it if we're pretty certain its needed. > > If Informix would document /every/ behaviour change in the release notes, > no matter how inconsequential, in easy-to-read language things might be > different. Even then, we'd probably still re-certify, but without that > level of documentation its not even an issue. > > Once we've re-certified, our customer will probably want it set up in > an independant instance/machine for them to test. This happens with > any change, tools/engine/code. After all, if the system goes down, > they're dead in the water (and losing money continuously). > > Then, and only then, will they deploy. > >This is oversimplified, and there are occasional exceptions, but its accurate >for the most part. You may think that a full test of all procedures isn't >warranted for a 5.05 -> 5.08 engine change, but think: > > We were on 5.01. Upgraded to 5.05 to correct the negative npused glitch > (primarily, there were other reasons). The main 5.x archival bug was > introduced in 5.03. Had we been able to test this properly the way we do > now (ie: restore /after/ a full simulated day of activity is in the logs, > instead of just restoring a level-0) we'd have caught this problem. > >There are other issues, of course, but in most cases both us and our >customers (remember, non-technical) have to be convinced that there is a >serious production issue in order to upgrade an engine. The archive issue >will probably be such a one (although we seem to be having other problems >with 5.08), but these are rare. > >Sorry to rant a little, its just that the "Oh, just upgrade" answer that >seems to be post-it-note'd to every Informix tech's monitor gets old after >a while, and I guess you pressed a button. Please don't take it personally :) > >-Richard I meant upgrade a test machine to the latest version and see if you can still reproduce the problem, you will never get a fix unless you upgrade... -- David Williams