Re: Difference between ONARCHIVE and ONTAPE?

Chuanlarp Satchavarodom wrote: > > Dear All, > > I started my Informix backup experience using onarchive. And I found > out that ontape is much more simpler and can achieve the same result > including continuous log backup. What is the difference, and in which > circumstatance should I use onarchive instead of ontape. Thank you. Onarchive was an early attempt by Informix to create a more powerful archive utility for larger more complex databases that needed partial archives and restores. Ontape is sufficient for most needs. Ontape can archive the entire engine and restore either the entire engine or a specified set of dbspaces. However since the restore is taken from a full backup it may not take much less time than a full restore. OnBar and OnArchive can create partial archives of specified dbspaces and Onbar's restore granularity is down to the table level and can also perform up-to-the-minute restores where you can specify to what time the database is to be restored as of. This helps when someone does something stupid at 3:46AM you can restore just that one dbspace or table AS OF 3:45PM. Also for very large databases OnBar and the storage managers can combine features to backup several dbspaces in parallel to multiple tape devices in parallel or in sequence. Art S. Kagel