Subject | Re: [Firebird-general] big time firebird |
---|---|
Author | Aage Johansen |
Post date | 2004-04-29T20:07:38Z |
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:08:55 +0000 (UTC), flpratt wrote:
backup file is valid). What kind of 'untidyness' are you thinking of? A
need for SWEEPs, perhaps?
My db's are quite small - just a few GB's at most - so I cannot help you on
the really big ones. One problem might be 'how long does a backup
take?'. It seems much quicker with Fb/1.5 than with older versions, but
hundreds of GB's may still be a problem. Maybe the backup mechanisms for
Fb/2.0 will make this less of a problem.
BTW, have you measured the effect of 'table placement'?
--
Aage J.
> I'm looking for firebird users who are supporting large databases. WeWe backup often, but hardly ever restore (except for testing that the
> are an informix and firebird shop and have a big project in development.
> While we use firebird extensively for small apps ( < 5gb ) we are
> hesitant to use it for databases in the hundreds of gb's. Two reasons we
> question firebird's ability to scale are lack of table placement control
> (you can't put a large table on a separate disk volume) and the apparent
> need to backup/restore frequently to keep things "tidy".
> We are very happy with firebird for the smaller apps and want to use it
> for larger ones. Anyone out there have a really large firebird database?
> Any replies are greatly appreciated,
backup file is valid). What kind of 'untidyness' are you thinking of? A
need for SWEEPs, perhaps?
My db's are quite small - just a few GB's at most - so I cannot help you on
the really big ones. One problem might be 'how long does a backup
take?'. It seems much quicker with Fb/1.5 than with older versions, but
hundreds of GB's may still be a problem. Maybe the backup mechanisms for
Fb/2.0 will make this less of a problem.
BTW, have you measured the effect of 'table placement'?
--
Aage J.