RE: SRDF vs. Dataguard for a failover site

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: