your databases on different phyiscal disks for the purpose of disaster
recovery. Does this still hold true if a SAN (EMC) is in the picture?
A client site configured their initial log file drive too
small, and they have proposed moving the logs to the database drive
which has plenty of free space.
They are aware that they will be losing some performance as the log
file drive was on its own spindle for the sequential writes.
TIA,
DaveAn EMC device will be able to protect you against physical failure of the
drives or LUN but can do nothing about the health of the filesystem on which
the database files reside. A corrupted filesystem can get you as badly as a
failed LUN. Having your logs on a different filesystem allows you to
restore to the point of failure by using a BACKUP LOG WITH NO_TRUNCATE if
the LUN with the physical database files goes away. That said, we live in
the real world and many of my client have to keep data files and log files
on the same filesystem. Just keep good backups.
Christian
"Dave" <dderocha@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e4fb551.0402050821.76b46122@.posting.google.com...
quote:
> I know that Database 101 required that you place your log files and
> your databases on different phyiscal disks for the purpose of disaster
> recovery. Does this still hold true if a SAN (EMC) is in the picture?
> A client site configured their initial log file drive too
> small, and they have proposed moving the logs to the database drive
> which has plenty of free space.
> They are aware that they will be losing some performance as the log
> file drive was on its own spindle for the sequential writes.
> TIA,
> Dave
