Re: Data Guard - Fast Start failover
- From: Ram K <lambu999@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: kathryn axelrod <kat.axe@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 20:47:18 -0500
Thanks Kathryn. Did you install the observer in the DR site or at a third
site? Do the clients tnsnames need to be reconfigured in case of a failure
when connecting to the new primary.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:45 PM, kathryn axelrod <kat.axe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You wouldn't even need FSFO if you have two hours of allowed downtime :)
>
> FSFO works ~phenomenally~ well. Right now we have it running on 11.1.0.7
> with no issues...There is around 1minute of downtime if the primary crashes.
>
>
> The only thing I'd throw out there is there are a few 11.1.0.7 DG specific
> patches (see note 738538.1) that are recommended...Other than that, I
> truly love DG/FSFO; it is amazing.
>
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Ram K <lambu999@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We are planning on a new HA/DR solution for a new application that we are
>> building. Most of our databases sit on SAN which is synchronosuly
>> replicated via SRDF to a DR site. The users for this application want 2
>> hr window within which the DB needs to available if it goes down. The vendor
>> recommends clustering, but I am also looking at Dataguard with Fast start
>> failover. The physical standby can be at the DR site. The DB will be on
>> 11g.
>>
>> Has anyone used 11g DG with FSF? Any specific issues? Does the DB come up
>> quickly without any problem if the primary DB goes down?
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Ram.
>>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Ram.
Other related posts:
