RE: ontape vs onbar

brett wrote > > Is onbar a viable backup solution with IBS 9.x or is ontape > still the best ? > > I keep reading in the newsgroup, talk about using ontape as > backup and not > onbar. Why ? > Ontape is quick and easy, but does not guarantee consistent restores if databse is active when backed up. Onbar works with logs to give reliable restore when database is active, and is therefore more demanding to use. Horses for courses. Colin Bull c.bull@videonetworks.com sending to informix-list

Colin Bull wrote: > brett wrote > >>Is onbar a viable backup solution with IBS 9.x or is ontape >>still the best ? >> >>I keep reading in the newsgroup, talk about using ontape as >>backup and not >>onbar. Why ? >> > > Ontape is quick and easy, but does not guarantee consistent restores if databse is active when backed up. > > Onbar works with logs to give reliable restore when database is active, and is therefore more demanding to use. > > Horses for courses. > > Colin Bull > c.bull@videonetworks.com > sending to informix-list ontape can be used to backup with the engine online (and databases active). onbar can be used to backup with the engine online (and databases active) and can run in parrallel and started from a storage manager etc. dd can be used to backup the chunks with the engine online "blocked" (i.e. onmode -c block) state.