Re: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?(specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- From: "Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:22:39 +0100
On 9/21/06, Carel-Jan Engel <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No. I have never seen (which doesn't meen it isn't possible) recovery
lasting as long as the timeframe spanned by the redo to be applied. In
general 15 minutes worth of redo does not take 15 minutes to apply.
I am not sure how to calculate maximum lag allowed as it depends on
machine speed and redo size and probably redo contents.
snipping all the rest of the excellent stuff. My guess would be that the
best way to generate 15 minutes worth of redo that takes c 15 minutes
elapsed time to apply would be to get rid of those pesky humans entering the
data on the primary and have it machine generated - I'm thinking scientific
experiments or automated monitoring systems etc.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info
Other related posts:
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?(specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?(specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?(specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?(specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » Re: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?(specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
