I've been using FSFO for about 8 months now in Production on some heavy redo producing systesm
I've used it for 10.2.0.3 (hit a few bugs), 10.2.0.4 with a few patches was stable, and I've been running it on a few 220.127.116.11 systems.
I agree that deciding when to failover is good to control, but having a system failover to another in under 40 seconds (that's my worst case, best case was 10 secs) on a hevily used prod system, without any manual intervention was incredible. Even if you did the steps manually, you can't beat it. I was able to get a db failoved over to another datacenter in a power loss event in 35 seconds using FSFO..
so I'd recommend it from 10.2.0.4 upwardsI still have to dig into the FSFO specific 11g enhancements, but I do know you can control failover programatically now.
regards Ahbaid Nuno Souto wrote:
Ahbaid Gaffoor wrote,on my timestamp of 3/09/2009 1:22 AM:Are you planning on using Fast Start Failover?If you are then I'd recommend not doing this unless you were on 10.2.0.4 with all patches applied for FSFONo way I'm using FSF. Last thing I need is the database deciding it should fail over! I'll decide that, thank you very much.Some of the bugs do not show up unless your redo generation rate is high, high being around 2M of redo per second, or 200G in 24 hrsYeah, I know. We do 500GB/day, in spurts. That's why I am concerned.If you can go to 11g then you can also investigate dataguard compression, and some of the more configurable failover optionsNo can do. DW software we use is not certified for 11g, yet. Maybe next year.I have not seen any issues specifically due to using LGWR vs. ARC for shipping, using LGWR puts you in better shape (IMO) for setting up FSFO should you need it.Thanks. I'm leaning towards using LGWR at the moment as I'm on 10.2.0.3 and patched up. All feedback seems to indicate it's OK at that release level.