>> I have an FB 2.1.5 Classic server running on a Windows 2003 server,
>> with a single hard drive for the operating system, and a 3 disk raid
> 5
>> array for the database. We have one database on this machine, which
>> is a dialect 1 database that was started on IB6.0 many years ago,
>> currentl
>> If you intend to run a sweep on the source database after a backup, you
>> don't need to garbage collect in the source database during a backup,
>> thus using gbak -g is fine.
>
>
> On the other hand, the time spent garbage collecting during the backup
> reduces
> the time the sweep takes, so th
-Original Message-
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Murdoch
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:27 AM
> I have an FB 2.1.5 Classic server running on a Windows 2003 server,
> with a single hard drive for the operating system,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Thomas Steinmaurer
wrote:
>
> If you intend to run a sweep on the source database after a backup, you
> don't need to garbage collect in the source database during a backup,
> thus using gbak -g is fine.
On the other hand, the time spent garbage collecting durin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Bob Murdoch wrote:
>
> That has been a problem for a very long time. Right now, a full
> backup/restore cycle is taking more than 24 hours, and at best we only
> have a 12 hour window at best on a Sunday. Hence the May 2009
> creation date of the current DB.
>
>
>>> From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas
> Steinmaurer
>
Here's a related question for you - as I looked at our script for
> v> doing nightly backups, I see a note that says:
"do not use garbage collection (gbak -g)
>>From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas
Steinmaurer
>>> Here's a related question for you - as I looked at our script for
v> doing nightly backups, I see a note that says:
>>>
>>> "do not use garbage collection (gbak -g) since we run
> Here's a related question for you - as I looked at our script for
> doing nightly backups, I see a note that says:
>
> "do not use garbage collection (gbak -g) since we run a manual sweep
> every night"
>
> Do you know if that's true - we don't need to do garbage collection
> via gbak if we are
Here's a related question for you - as I looked at our script for
doing nightly backups, I see a note that says:
"do not use garbage collection (gbak -g) since we run a manual sweep
every night"
Do you know if that's true - we don't need to do garbage collection
via gbak if we are running gfix -
Hello Bob,
>> >> Is there any way to tell if the sweep was successful other than
all of the markers
>
> matching? Is there any way to tell why a sweep would have failed?
>
> >>
> >> No. You should manually check transactions' markers difference, or use
>
> >>tool like FBDataGuard which can
Alexey
>>
>> From: Alexey Kovyazin [mailto:a...@ib-aid.com]
>>
>> >> Is there any way to tell if the sweep was successful other than
all of the markers
matching? Is there any way to tell why a sweep would have failed?
>>
>> No. You should manually check transactions' markers
Hello Bob,
> Is there any way to tell if the sweep was successful other than all of
> the markers matching? Is there any way to tell why a sweep would have
> failed?
>
No. You should manually check transactions' markers difference, or use
tool like FBDataGuard which can check it in desired ti
Hello Bob,
>>> 1): The most obvious thing according to the header page is a very
> large
>>> gap between the oldest active transaction and the next transaction.
> This
>>> means, you have a long-running/stuck transaction. If you are lucky,
> you
>>> can go into the MON$TRANSACTIONS table and check
Thomas -
-Original Message-
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas
Steinmaurer
>> 1): The most obvious thing according to the header page is a very
large
>> gap between the oldest active transaction and the next transaction.
Alexey -
>> Alexey Kovyazin [mailto:a...@ib-aid.com]
>> Seems like you do correct things, but do you check that sweep is
really successful?
>>
>> Look at the transactions' markers log in IBTM (IBSurgeon
Transaction Monitor), gathered from Profitmed
>> database (120Gb, 400 clients, 2mln trans
Hello Bob,
> currently at 90GB. We have sweep disabled, and each night run gbak,
> gfix --sweep, as well as reindex all tables via a script.
>
Seems like you do correct things, but do you check that sweep is really
successful?
Look at the transactions' markers log in IBTM (IBSurgeon Transactio
Hi Bob,
> I have an FB 2.1.5 Classic server running on a Windows 2003 server,
> with a single hard drive for the operating system, and a 3 disk raid 5
> array for the database. We have one database on this machine, which
> is a dialect 1 database that was started on IB6.0 many years ago,
> curren
I have an FB 2.1.5 Classic server running on a Windows 2003 server,
with a single hard drive for the operating system, and a 3 disk raid 5
array for the database. We have one database on this machine, which
is a dialect 1 database that was started on IB6.0 many years ago,
currently at 90GB. We ha
18 matches
Mail list logo
