Re: Architecture Question
- From: "Rajeev Prabhakar" <rprabha01@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bagavath@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:47:09 -0500
Bagavath
For reporting and DW needs, I would agree with Stephane for Data Guard
setup. Be advised that right now, the need might be a reporting environment
and
slowly, it will evolve into a need for a reporting/DR environment. So, in my
opinion, going with this kind of architecture would be better in the
medium/long
term.
For a subset data replication - Materialized views OR Advanced replication
OR streams. Each case being dependent upon the scope of replication.
-Rajeev
On 12/20/06, Bagavath <bagavath@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stepahne & Ajay
Thanks for your input. I do understand it has to be logical standby. Right
now we are evaluating 10g for some other requirements. May be this could be
an added reason for moving to it. We ruled out MVs because of the
application DB design, transaction rate and the DW requirements to capture
history. The refresh frequency seemed too high in that case in order to
capture all the changes happening in the primary db and reflect on the
secondary.
On 12/20/06, Ajay <ajay_1ajay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Have you considered MV replication?
> How big is the database?
> I agree with Stephane that Dataguard - logical stabndby on 9i is not
> really good. About streams - I did not understand if he means that advanced
> replication means streams meaning both are same. I think they are not. In
> any case streams also has issues on 9i. So your options are advanced
> replication and MV.
>
> *Stephane Faroult <sfaroult@xxxxxxxxxxxx> *wrote:
>
> If you want to read from your secondary database, then Dataguard should
> use logical standby - and I wouldn't use it in a production environment in
> 9.2, it still has many teething problems (understand that it's very
> buggy). I haven't had the opportunity yet to give it another shot with 10R2.
> Advanced replication, today, means streams. Streams isn't totally painless,
> and works better, I think, with a continuous flow than with bursts that take
> some time to process (but you don't seem to want near real-time replication,
> do you? I guess that if in the worst case you have a couple of minutes delay
> it will be OK).
> If I were you, I think that I'd try to convince whomever it may concern
> to use Oracle 10R2, and test thoroughly Dataguard in this environment,
> because your case just looks like a Dataguard case study. Short of that, I'd
> probably opt (after due testing) for streams, but it's somewhat of an
> overkill (you'll be using only a fraction of features).
> HTH
> Stéphane Faroult
>
>
>
> *On Mar Dec 19 5:19 , Bagavath sent:
>
> *
>
> hi all,
> > im new to architechture decision making. we have to decide on a set
> > up where we have to replicate data from the main application db to a
> > secondary one for reporting. since this would be a real time application
> > with a high transaction rate, we have decided to go for a secondary db for
> > reporting and other needs.
> >
> We are looking at
> > Oracle Dataguard
> > Streams
> > Advanced Replication
> > This secondary would feed DW loads too.. Any suggestions please ? DB
> > ver is 9.2. Also we have a specific requirement where we have to
> > replicate multiple sources to the same target DB.
> >
>
> thanks
> Bagavath
>
>
Other related posts:
