Re: Dataguard config
- From: Adam Musch <ahmusch@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: carlospena999@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 14:36:47 -0500
I would question why you're implementing data guard without a compelling
business case. The server(s) on which the standby database(s) must have
the same licensed options as the active databases which they support.
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 2:21 PM, C P <carlospena999@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We are thinking of implementing dataguard for several of our production
> databases, some in 10g, some in 11g. One of the colleagues is suggesting an
> idea of just having one unix server and install several 10g and 11g (11.1,
> 11.2) oracle homes for different applications and running several standbys
> (about 8) out of those oracle homes. The idea according to him is to save
> on CPU$ since not all the applications will be down at the same time. It
> does not sound like a good idea to me. I am trying to make my case against
> it. Some of the potential issues I see is that version mismatch during
> upgrades, esp on the OS side, if there is a need to reboot; having a
> runaway process in one application will affect all applications, although I
> do not see that as a big possibility.
> Can the listers share their thoughts on having all standbys in one server.
>
> CP.
>
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
Adam Musch
ahmusch@xxxxxxxxx
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
