We don't expect recovery to be shorter than the time it takes for the hardware to copy the data over. Restoring from tape should be a solution that is only needed in the case of a severe problem. Power problems are handled by our colo facility, we want to quickly restore for most hardware problems (disk/machine failures).
We don't actually store any archive/aggregate information. Everything we store on the main databases is used on a relatively constant basis. What we are currently thinking about doing right now is having an identical master and slave, each with about 500 gigs (later these will be at about 1TB each). On a periodic basis, we will take a snapshot using innodb hotbackup of the master machine that will go to a third box with a bunch of big raid-5 ide drives. We were planning on starting with NFS for the short term since innodb hot backup doesn't go over the network and figure something else out later. This machine would then shutdown the slave, copy over the new snapshot, and restart replication at the point from the point that innodb hotbackup started running at. We would also take the snapshot from the IDE box, and write it to tape at this point. Any thoughts on this? What are you doing? One issue we have is that we are trying to plan out our setup for storing a total of about 25TB of data and we are trying to find the lowest cost solution, with decent reliability. On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 14:33, Andrew Braithwaite wrote: > Hi, > > I'm afraid that with that amount of data and having a few huge constantly > updated tables will result in huge restore times for disaster recovery (just > untaring/copying backups of the magnitude of terabytes back to the live > environment will take hours and hours..) > > You're talking "massive enterprise sized solutions" and "we're on a budget" > in the same sentence (which are not compatible with each other) - I know > because we are the same here! > > A couple of things I can suggest: > > 1. Redesign your applications so that you archive/aggregate information that > will never be used again. > > 2. Write a function that will backup the "often changed" stuff on a daily > basis and backup the seldom changed stuff on a weekly basis. (as you're on > a budget use a few inexpensive IDE raid 5 linux boxes - 6 x 250GB = 1.25 TB > for backup) > > 3. Put in place a replication system that is so resilient that how ever many > machines go down, there will still be plenty of fully replicated servers to > satisfy the demand. Make sure that you have UPS so that if the power fails > you can get a clean shutdown. And ignore backups completely. > > Hope this helps, > > Andrew > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Shear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday 23 July 2003 21:50 > To: Andrew Braithwaite > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: large mysql/innodb databases > > > The data is constantly updated. There are 3 or 4 huge tables, and several > smaller tables. We would love to have an incremental solution that is > *guaranteed* to be correct, but we haven't found a way to do that, so what > we've been thing is we'd do a complete snapshot once a week, and do > incremental backups of one form or another every day. The replicated slave > is allowed to stop replicating during backup. There is no absolute > requirement on the time needed to restore. We'd like most disaster recovery > to go fairly quickly, but we realize that on our budget, that a major > disaster could cause us fairly significant downtime. > > On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:43, Andrew Braithwaite wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We have similar numbers here. > > > > A couple of questions: > > > > - are they logfiles that could be rolled over on a daily basis or are > > they constantly updated huge tables? > > > > - is the type of backup you want incremental or a daily/weekly > > snapshot one? > > > > - do you have a requirement for the speed of restore needed in the > > case of disaster recovery? > > > > - is the replicated slave allowed to stop replicating whilst the > > backup is being performed? > > > > Let me know and I think I'll be able to help :) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Andrew > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Shear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday 23 July 2003 21:08 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: large mysql/innodb databases > > > > > > I was wondering if anyone had any experience with setting up large and > > fairly high performance databases. We are looking at setting up > > databases with each machine having somewhere between 500 gigs and 2 > > terabytes along with a slave box and we'd like to backup everything to > > tape at a minimum of once a week, but if possible, daily. We're also > > looking at central storage solutions. However, we're hesitant because > > that will result in a (very > > expensive) single point of failure. Of course, we could buy 2, but they > are > > fairly expensive. Has anyone had any experience with setups like this? > > What kind of backup solutions did you use? We aren't too concerned about > > the CPU usage as our databases tend to be i/o bound. > > -- > > Joe Shear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Joe Shear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
