Carel-Jan, Are you sure about the license bit, I think you have to pay for the license at the remote site, the one you're talking about is when you have an active-passive cluster (with a single db, that is), not a remote site. On 9/12/07, Carel-Jan Engel <careljan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Binh, > > In my opinion, there are numerous arguments to favour Data Guard over > disk/san/volume replication. Just to mention a few: > > 1. Much less bandwidth reuired: just redo vectors get sent over, not > a full block/cluster/track for every redo wrtite, data file write, archive > write, control file write....... > 2. Configuring a delay in applying archives at the DR site protects > for 'logical' errors as well. That has saved some asses of customers in the > past > 3. Applying the archives at the standby implies a sanity check of > the archives themselves: a bit fallen over (whatever rare it is) in a disk > block gets detected. > 4. Independency of storage architecture: you can afford to have a > smaller/slower/older SAN at the DR site, as long as you can store all > database files. You can even afford to have no SAN but JBOD/NAS/DAS at the > DR site, or just no SAN at all at both ends. > > Of course there are some arguments in favour of disk/san/volume > replication as well: > > 1. No Oracle license required at the DR site if you do not do the > sanity checks more often than at 10 days per year. > 2. One 'topic of expertise' needed for DR > > I can't think of more right now, but maybe my mind is a little biased ;-) > > HTH > > Best regards, > > Carel-Jan Engel > > === > If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok) > === > On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 14:52 -0700, Binh Pham wrote: > > Any one who has used Veritas Volume Replicator in place of DataGuard > fordisaster recovery or failover setups? > Any issues or problems? Pro's and con's? > Thanks. > --//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > >