Re: Largest *SM DB
2000-02-04 04:17:39
Subject: |
Re: Largest *SM DB |
From: |
Henk ten Have <hthta AT SARA DOT NL> |
Date: |
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:17:39 +0100 |
On 03-Feb-00 Bill Smoldt wrote:
> And split it up, they should. You shouldn't have a database this large
> unless you're from Texas. We aren't Oracle database administrators, who all
> believe bigger is better.
I'm glad we'r from Amsterdam and not from Texas... :)
> I think the current support recommendation is to keep it under 20G. The
> last site I visited with a 50G+ database was taking too long to back up the
> database.
Exactly. And I'm also glad we'r not in the top-10 of the biggest DB's, and
I like to keep it that way....
> For those of you with large DBs - how is your DB backup time?
Awful, that's for sure. And don't even think about restore and audit...
Cheers,
Henk (big DB's sucks, even in Texas)
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Largest *SM DB, Keith Nelson
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Mooney Mark
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Joshua S. Bassi
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Richard Cowen
- FW: Largest *SM DB, Keith Nelson
- Re: Largest *SM DB, bbullock
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Bill Smoldt
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Kelly Lipp
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Joshua S. Bassi
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Kelly Lipp
- Re: Largest *SM DB,
Henk ten Have <=
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Bill Colwell
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Tab Trepagnier
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Cook, Dwight E
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Steven P Roder
- Re: Largest *SM DB, wawork Wash
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Scott Fluegge
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Tab Trepagnier
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Joshua S. Bassi
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Scott Fluegge
- Re: Largest *SM DB, Alan R. White
|
|
|