replication IS a full backup but it wont secure ur bud of stupid mistakes. however the only crashes we had were when a machines hardware died... ;) maybe u like the term snapshot instead of backup. ;)
Simon Simon Lange //Director ======================== www.polynaturedesign.com +49[0]4131 220121 PHONE +49[0]4131 224730 FAX +49[0]1717793294 CELL ======================== -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Hilker Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:19 PM To: DBMail mailinglist Subject: Re: [Dbmail] Database backup You (M. J. [Mike] O'Brien) wrote: > > I am not too fussy about FBSD multiuser dump/restore operations on a > production server as dynamic as a DBMail system (does the new (-L) > switch > (UFS2) change that - I don't know.). Yes, it does. You get consistent backups from the productional live living system :-) For consistent restore you have to stop the database first or restore the whole partition offline. > Simon's point is a good one. One needs to be careful though about > replicating full-circle a hopelessly corrupted or dropped InnoDB. (A > recent tarball is good to have) Replication is not a full backup. If you trash the database and replicate the trash without a time shift, you have double trash and no backup. On the other hand you can use database replication for some kind of load balancing and real time failover. > To achieve the backup on a replicating slave what I do at a number of > locations is: [...] Ok, this combines both solutions ;-) But if you only want a backup and don't have two database servers, snapshots with ufs2 are a dream solution :) bye, Andy -- Andy Hilker -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cryptobank.de -- PGP Key: https://ca.crypta.net _______________________________________________ Dbmail mailing list Dbmail@dbmail.org https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
