For a long time I didn't know where to start with backups, because I was convinced that incomplete or unreliable backups were a total waste of time and money. (Which tbf isn't 100% false.)
Eventually I realized that some backups are better than no backups at all, and prioritized getting _something_ in place to at the very least have copies of important files copied regularly to another drive somewhere.
> I was convinced that incomplete or unreliable backups were a total waste of time and money. (Which tbf isn't 100% false.)
It depends a lot on your use case.
If you're backing up a production database system that's in constant use, then the files are almost certain to change while the backup is in progress. And a backup of everything on the database server except the data probably isn't what you want!
On the other hand, if I'm backing up my personal computer, my family photos aren't getting regularly overwritten - and if the backup of my web browser cache is inconsistent? So be it.
It's been a while, but with e.g. Oracle 10, it was specifically stated in the docs that backing up the data-file(s), followed by the archive-logs, you would end up with a recoverable backup. I'm not sure if other databases are designed that way.
In my case it was mostly office PCs that might have important documents or spreadsheets on them. I've been working on a redundant, networked backup solution to serve the whole office, but realized that I was building a henhouse while the chickens were already running loose. So I ordered some USB hard drives just to make sure things were getting copied.
Maintaining a super basic (but regularly verified) hourly incremental backup system has spared the people who use those PCs a lot of grief, plus saved me time trying to recover lost data.
Comments
For a long time I didn't know where to start with backups, because I was convinced that incomplete or unreliable backups were a total waste of time and money. (Which tbf isn't 100% false.)
Eventually I realized that some backups are better than no backups at all, and prioritized getting _something_ in place to at the very least have copies of important files copied regularly to another drive somewhere.
> I was convinced that incomplete or unreliable backups were a total waste of time and money. (Which tbf isn't 100% false.)
It depends a lot on your use case.
If you're backing up a production database system that's in constant use, then the files are almost certain to change while the backup is in progress. And a backup of everything on the database server except the data probably isn't what you want!
On the other hand, if I'm backing up my personal computer, my family photos aren't getting regularly overwritten - and if the backup of my web browser cache is inconsistent? So be it.
It's been a while, but with e.g. Oracle 10, it was specifically stated in the docs that backing up the data-file(s), followed by the archive-logs, you would end up with a recoverable backup. I'm not sure if other databases are designed that way.
I've done it with SQL Server, but it wasn't automatic. I had to manually repair or remove the DB pages that were in use when the backup was made.
I think with Oracle you needed to replay the archive log; not sure if that was via rman or just a mount option.
Either way it was identical to crash recovery
In my case it was mostly office PCs that might have important documents or spreadsheets on them. I've been working on a redundant, networked backup solution to serve the whole office, but realized that I was building a henhouse while the chickens were already running loose. So I ordered some USB hard drives just to make sure things were getting copied.
Maintaining a super basic (but regularly verified) hourly incremental backup system has spared the people who use those PCs a lot of grief, plus saved me time trying to recover lost data.