RE: SRDF vs. Dataguard for a failover site
- From: "Baumgartel, Paul" <paul.baumgartel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx>, oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:07:44 +0100
We use a modified version (asynchronous rather than synchronous, to avoid the
performance hit) for production databases, and have periodic tests to make sure
that all is well. It does make life somewhat easier for DBAs, since storage
and system admins are responsible for failing over the storage. Virtual IPs
are in place so that no changes to TNS service names are needed. DBAs need
only bring up the instances on the DR servers and hand over to application
owners for checkouts. Once testing is over, the failback procedure is the
reverse of failover.
Paul Baumgartel
CREDIT SUISSE
Information Technology
DBA & Admin - NY, KIGA 1
One Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
USA
Phone 212.538.1143
paul.baumgartel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.credit-suisse.com
_____
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of ryan_gaffuri@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:18 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: SRDF vs. Dataguard for a failover site
Has anyone used SRDF instead of dataguard to manage a failover site? Anyone
have any opinions of it?
==============================================================================
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications
disclaimer:
http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
==============================================================================
Other related posts:
