HP3000-L Archives

December 1998, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tom Hula <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:42:54 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
I've seen this done before going one way.  Reference files were needed on a
different box, so the root file and related master and details were restored to
the other box on a daily basis.  But going back the other way... have the files
been touched at all on the production box?  If so, I'd say no way.  Unless you can
reconstruct a corrupt root file.

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> We have a test box and a production box.  We run processes on the test box to
> offload them from the production box.  A particular process requires 13-14
> hours on the production box to populate an 8-million record TurboImage
> dataset.  The same job on the test box requires about the same amount of
> time. The benefit of running on the test box is that cpu processing time is
> not being consumed on the production box.
>
> If one was to back up the datafile (Image master and detail files) on the test
> box, is it safe to restore that file onto the production box?  I don't know
> enough about how image databases and image root files work to say if this will
> cause problems.
>
> Your input is greatly appreciated.  Thanks.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

ATOM RSS1 RSS2