Subject Re: Create shadow's commit on large database locking up system until finished.
Author rpjohio
--- In, "Alan McDonald" <alan@m...>
> > > > Ron James.
> > >
> > > how often are you making shadows? I would have thought you
> > it when
> > > you restore and that's it.
> > > Alan
> >
> >
> > Our system automatically backs-up and restores once a week. At
> > point we need to re-create the shadow or have the restore create
> > One twist is that we have the system setup to do a complete fail
> > over to the secondary disk when a failure of the 1st disk is
> > detected and automatically activate the once shadow database into
> > the primary database. Our hopes were that the system would be
> > available for the users transactions as much as possible since
> > users are concerned that the backup/restore weekly process can
> > overnight on large databases. If Firebird blocks access to the
> > database while it creates much of the shadow, we will have to
> > potentially re-think the recovery strategy.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> once a week! this is a bit of overkill IMHO.
> backup and test restore once a week by all means - I do it
nightly. If I get
> an error in the test restore I'm on it the next day.
> You're aware that any corruption in the master is mirrored to the
> instantly. aren't you.
> You seem to have the backup/restore cycle mixed in with the shadow
> too much.
> I gave away shadowing in 1998. I use replication now in lieu of
tape backups
> and shadows. Tape backups are there but it's too old to and only
ever serves
> as history. I get a live database on a live server with replcation
with no
> disks to swap - no threat of a disk hiccup (in the dying throws of
a disk
> dying) corrupting a good copy of the database, the swap to the
next server
> is a simple task in the preferences of the application which every
user is
> trained for. I can literally take my time to wander over to the
server to
> see what the problem was. It's happened a couple of times
(hardware failure)
> in the last few years. I don't sweat any more. If I relied on
> they'd need me or someone equivalently knowledgeable to swap the
> around, reboot etc before they're back on their feet.
> One caveat is if your application has very heavy writing, then
> is not so good, the time taken to "catch up" is slow. I'm thinking
> converting the FBReplicator over to using remote reading but the
> server to write to an adjacent database file. That would speed
things up a
> lot I think.
> Alan

Unfortunately, our software runs at many different sites (>400)
where we are their IT department. Most people purchase our system
and when there is a failure call us. The most drastic failures we
have endured are hardware failures and database corruptions. Since
moving from Interbase to Firebird, the amount of corruptions
experienced in the past year are 1, and we believe that was actually
due to failing computer hardware (jury still deliberating over that
one). Corruptions being reduced makes hardware failure our next
priority to reduce. Our systems currently rely on next day shipment
of a computer and a painful restore of the most recent backup before
the customer is running completely again. In an effort to reduce
that pain, we are attempting to install a secondary hard drive,
ghosted from the primary and shadowed. When the system is scheduled
to 're-ghost' the primary drive, typically once a week, the shadow
on the secondary drive is deleted. Our main system when restarted,
detects the shadow gone and re-creates it. If there is a failure
for the primary drive to boot, it can be disabled in BIOS or pulled
and the secondary disk can boot. When booted to the secondary disk,
the shadow is activated as the primary database and downtime is a
matter of minutes instead of a day. We would like to use the shadow
technology not to handle corruption issues, but to handle hard disk
failures. If creating the shadow takes time, then we will have to
live with it. We will just have to document that fact for our
customers and make sure the disk clone is scheduled accordingly.