Re: Disaster Recovery for datawarehouse
- From: "Ghassan Salem" <salem.ghassan@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: hrishys@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:20:29 +0100
Hrishy,
Why do you think disk-based replicatrion is better than DG? I'm not
saying that it's a bad option. But if you design your DWH, with huge
tables partitioned so that you just update a new (or single)
partition, in it's own tablespace, then you can just copy that file to
make your standby up-to-date, not all the db has to be copied. (well,
you may end up copying more than one file, for indexes, ...).
The point is that a good design, taking into account the fact that
there will be a standby DB that has to be kept up-to-date quickly, is
the best way out.
rgds
On Nov 20, 2007 4:24 PM, hrishy <hrishys@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Dennis
>
> Thanks for taking time out and responding.
>
> In many systems what i have seen is the EDW is huge
> and they just cannot afford to do without nologging
> operation
>
> For management disaster recovery means when the
> building blows up we start operating from another
> country and we start working .
>
> With these kind of systems in mind when the
> interviewer persisted with dataguard option i
> explained to him dataguard means frequently recreating
> the standby becuase of the nologging operations.
>
> I was more on the expensive things like EMC Symetric
> technology or any kind of storage based replication.
>
> Let me see if i get the job offer :-).
>
> But i would be very happy to see what the experts
> think here are there any other solutions apart from
> storage based replication
>
> regards
> Hrishy
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Which email service gives you unlimited storage?
> http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
