Re: Data Guard question.
- From: Carel-Jan Engel <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: makbo@xxxxxxxxxxx, RROGERS@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 11:52:34 +0200
Mark, Ron,
I strongly disrecommend using the ..._FILE_NAME_CONVERT parameters. Not
for technical reasons, but from the point of view of robustness of
managing your systems.
Immediately after a failover you're in a stressfull situation. Keeping
in mind that the structure you're working on is different makes the
situation even more error-prone.
So, try to keep the structures as symmetric as possible. Even when you
have only one big disk available, create a directory tree that resembles
the tree on the primary, albeit with symbolic links.
Further, you might take a look in my post on this list of last May 17th
on the subject 'backup archive logs'. I elaborated a bit on the
game-plan for a HA setup.
Best regards, Carel-Jan Engel
On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 21:47, Mark Bole wrote:
> Ron Rogers wrote:
>
> > List,
> > I have been looking into using Data Guard as a method of providing HA is =
> > the company decides it is an option they want to invest in.
> > The question that I have are.
> > 1. Using a physical database as the Data Guard, does the second server =
> > have to have the exact same physical equipment for the disks or does it =
> > just have to be the same directory structure? [...]
>
> Doesn't even require that, since a physical standby can be on the same
> machine as the primary if desired.
>
> Check the Data Guard manual for the section "Standby Database Directory
> Structure Considerations" and the DB_FILE_NAME_CONVERT and
> LOG_FILE_NAME_CONVERT parameters.
Best regards,
Carel-Jan Engel
===
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok)
===
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
