Re: Logical Standby Database Question
- From: "Mark Strickland" <strickland.mark@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:27:20 -0700
Followup: Cascaded standby vs non-cascaded standby configuration:
This is just a followup to let the list know that we chose a Cascaded
configuration and implemented it in Production Saturday evening. So far,
all is well. Ran into one bug that seems to be specific to 10.1.0.3 -- if
the Standby Redo Logs in the physical standby have more than one log member,
the alert log will report ORA-00322 and ORA-00312. The solution was simply
to re-create the Standby Redo Logs with a single member. It will be some
weeks before reporting users get migrated over so, at the moment, our new
logical standby database is just running along happily hoovering in the
archived logs. 10g Data Guard is a wonderful thing.
Regards,
Mark Strickland
Next Online Technologies
Seattle, WA
On 6/2/06, Mark Strickland <strickland.mark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you for the responses: Yes, we've considered the impact if the
physical standby is out of commission for an extended time. The end-users
can live without their reporting database for a day. Mission-critical
reporting is going to stay on the primary. I'm looking for a best practice
if there is one and, if anyone has actually implemented a cascaded
configuration, have there been any gotchas.
Mark
On 6/2/06, David Sharples <davidsharples@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> well yes that's what I implied, ab it useless for reporting purposes if
> you dont have all the data to report on.
>
>
> On 02/06/06, Ghassan Salem <salem.ghassan@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> >
> > David,
> > the log stdby will still be available, but not updated, until the
> > physical one resumes sending it's redologs.
> >
>
Other related posts:
