Re: Data Guard question.

Mark, Ron,
I strongly disrecommend using the ..._FILE_NAME_CONVERT parameters. Not
for technical reasons, but from the point of view of robustness of
managing your systems.

Immediately after a failover you're in a stressfull situation. Keeping
in mind that the structure you're working on is different makes the
situation even more error-prone.

So, try to keep the structures as symmetric as possible. Even when you
have only one big disk available, create a directory tree that resembles
the tree on the primary, albeit with symbolic links. 

Further, you might take a look in my post on this list of last May 17th
on the subject 'backup archive logs'. I elaborated a bit on the
game-plan for a HA setup.

Best regards, Carel-Jan Engel

On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 21:47, Mark Bole wrote:

> Ron Rogers wrote:
> 
> > List,
> >  I have been looking into using Data Guard as a method of providing HA is =
> > the company decides it is an option they want to invest in.
> >  The question that I have are.
> > 1. Using a physical database as the Data Guard, does the second server =
> > have to have the exact same physical equipment for the disks or does it =
> > just have to be the same directory structure? [...]
> 
> Doesn't even require that, since a physical standby can be on the same 
> machine as the primary if desired.
> 
> Check the Data Guard manual for the section "Standby Database Directory 
> Structure Considerations" and the DB_FILE_NAME_CONVERT and 
> LOG_FILE_NAME_CONVERT parameters.

Best regards,

Carel-Jan Engel

===
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok)
===


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: