Re: To log or not to log, that is the question.

Malcolm Weallans (onlinedbc@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote: : > >Would the only benefit be that you could do backups of the logs and : > therefore>have incremental backups since your last "big" backup? : > > Even an "unlogged" database writes DDL to the logs. And checkpoints : are : > logged. : > > But, if you don't log, your backups will be valid to only the last : > checkpoint. : > > Use buffered logging - it's fast and reasonably secure. : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : I cannot believe what I am reading. REASONABLY SECURE!!! That's like : saying I've put a lock on my house and put the key under the mat. That's : reasonably secure. In the database world I don't believe nay of us can : accept being "reasonably secure". We need to be totally secure or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Can you ever be totally secure? If you think you are, you're living in a dream world. Reasonable secure is a relative state dependent on many variables. There is the old fable of a rich man that spends all his money on safes and guards and such untill he runs out of money. : totally insecure. At least then we know where we stand! There is only : one use for BUFFERED LOGGING - to win benchmarks - nothing more!!! Think about it. If speed can increase productivity by enough then I may be able to show that in the event of a disaster, even though recovery may mean having to have operators redo a week's worth of work, I am still better off in the long run. {like this long run on sentence:-)}. Everything is a balancing act: The likelyhood of disaster, cost of recovery, productivity, costs, reputation, customer service.... My humble opinion. -- John Regep, || _______ || ZenaComp, Incorporated Information Consultant || -----/ / || 17187 N.Laurel Park Dr. #351 jregep@zenacomp.com || / /______ || Livonia, Michigan 48152 1-(313)-464-3700 || -------- || FAX (313)-464-3730