Incremental Restore question
in [DB2]
|
Prev: canceling admin_move_table fails if source table have restricton drop
Next: DB2 V9.1 Hadr Delay Syncup
From: danfan46 on 9 Jun 2010 05:48 db2 V9.5.5 on linux Red Hat 4 with 4 local Nodes (partitioned). Backups taken: Backup PRODDB (offline) --> Cold1 Backup PRODDB online incremental --> Hot1 Backup PRODDB online incremental --> Hot2 Backup PRODDB online incremental --> Hot3 Is this OK? Hot1 and Hot2 are not needed? On each node Restore db PRODDB incremental from hot3 into TESTDB Restore db PRODDB incremental from cold1 into TESTDB Restore db PRODDB incremental from hot3 into TESTDB /dg
From: Anwei Shen on 9 Jun 2010 09:48 It will work, you dont need hot1 and hot2 if you want hot3 image, it include hot1 and hot2. On Jun 9, 5:48 am, danfan46 <danfa...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > db2 V9.5.5 on linux Red Hat 4 with 4 local Nodes (partitioned). > > Backups taken: > Backup PRODDB (offline) --> Cold1 > Backup PRODDB online incremental --> Hot1 > Backup PRODDB online incremental --> Hot2 > Backup PRODDB online incremental --> Hot3 > > Is this OK? Hot1 and Hot2 are not needed? > On each node > Restore db PRODDB incremental from hot3 into TESTDB > Restore db PRODDB incremental from cold1 into TESTDB > Restore db PRODDB incremental from hot3 into TESTDB > > /dg
From: danfan46 on 9 Jun 2010 09:55 Yes, that is what I assumed from RTFM. However, when I tried to do the restore, db2 kept pestering me about restoring hot2 first, but then I hadn't dropped TESTDB nor pruned its history. The current version of TESTDB was based on cold1 + hot1. I'll see tomorrow if the script works OK, when I drop TESDB before trying to restore it. /dg Anwei Shen wrote: > It will work, you dont need hot1 and hot2 if you want hot3 image, it > include hot1 and hot2. > On Jun 9, 5:48 am, danfan46 <danfa...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> db2 V9.5.5 on linux Red Hat 4 with 4 local Nodes (partitioned). >> >> Backups taken: >> Backup PRODDB (offline) --> Cold1 >> Backup PRODDB online incremental --> Hot1 >> Backup PRODDB online incremental --> Hot2 >> Backup PRODDB online incremental --> Hot3 >> >> Is this OK? Hot1 and Hot2 are not needed? >> On each node >> Restore db PRODDB incremental from hot3 into TESTDB >> Restore db PRODDB incremental from cold1 into TESTDB >> Restore db PRODDB incremental from hot3 into TESTDB >> >> /dg >
From: Lennart Jonsson on 9 Jun 2010 10:16 On 2010-06-09 15:55, danfan46 wrote: > Yes, that is what I assumed from RTFM. > However, when I tried to do the restore, db2 kept pestering me about > restoring hot2 first, but then I hadn't dropped TESTDB nor pruned its history. > The current version of TESTDB was based on cold1 + hot1. > I'll see tomorrow if the script works OK, when I drop TESDB before trying to restore it. > /dg Not sure whether this holds for partitioned database, but for non partioned databases, I find: restore db ... incremental auto ... very nice. You might want to have a look at that. /Lennart [...]
From: danfan46 on 9 Jun 2010 11:55
Yes it works with db2_all first <<+0> for catalog partition and then <<-0< for the rest of them /dg Lennart Jonsson wrote: > On 2010-06-09 15:55, danfan46 wrote: >> Yes, that is what I assumed from RTFM. >> However, when I tried to do the restore, db2 kept pestering me about >> restoring hot2 first, but then I hadn't dropped TESTDB nor pruned its history. >> The current version of TESTDB was based on cold1 + hot1. >> I'll see tomorrow if the script works OK, when I drop TESDB before trying to restore it. >> /dg > > Not sure whether this holds for partitioned database, but for non > partioned databases, I find: > > restore db ... incremental auto ... > > very nice. You might want to have a look at that. > > > /Lennart > > [...] |