The first part of the question is pretty simple; has anyone run a DB in both
noarchivelog mode? Were there any measurable performance benefits to turning off logging that you could share?
The second half is a guess more specific to my circumstances but if anyone has any thoughts that'd be good. Currently our Master ( main writing box ) is running in
archivelog mode complete with standby and table-level backups. The standby is tested twice weekly, and the backups more rarely. Not as evil as some but still not good. So, we've finally persuaded senior management to shell out for a shiny new box. It's lots better and hopefully won't blow up or fry the motherboard like the last one etc etc.
On this box we'll have hourly backups, replicated offsite down redundant fibre optics, and the backups will be tested at least daily, i.e. everything we can throw at it.
In this situation, and if the answer to the first part is positive, is it actually wise to run a DB in
noarchivelog mode? If the box, or the discs die, it'll be quicker to start something up to takes it's place than it was previously and we don't mind losing an hours work if it means a significant improvement in speed.
It still seems a little bit dodgy though? I understand that we'd lose an hours work and are less worried about this than anything else we might have missed in our analysis of the implications of not having a standby.