Backup which is good on-bar or on-tape
Posted in 2013
Topics: General Discussion
Please let me know which method is best. I know if we use tape device on-tape is only option. I have external storage and which is good way whether on-bar or on-tape. I have tried use on-tape and able to backup. Please let me know which method is better Thank you --001a11c37044afdfcb04eb23bd23
Several points:
1. You can use ontape or onbar with either tape or disk backup targets.
The only thing with onbar is whether your storage manager supports tape
targets. If you are using ISM (so versions of the engine through 11.70)
then you are correct, there is not support for tape. If you are using 3rd
party storage managers, then usually tape is supported.
2. Ontape is faster than onbar if your storage manager doesn't support
parallel backup streams (ex: ISM does not but PSM - the new storage manager
delivered with v12.10+ - does). Onbar is faster if you can do parallel
backups.
3. Onbar is more flexible.
4. Ontape is simpler.
Art
Art S. Kagel, Principal Consultant
Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com)
Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions
and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any
other organization with which I am associated either explicitly,
implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of
other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor
those of the entities themselves.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:17 AM, medkba <medkba@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please let me know which method is best. I know if we use tape device
> on-tape is only option. I have external storage and which is good way
> whether on-bar or on-tape. I have tried use on-tape and able to backup.
>
> Please let me know which method is better
>
> Thank you
>
> --001a11c37044afdfcb04eb23bd23
>
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
--089e0117720f8eb28c04eb23dae2