Re: Disaster Recovery options
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:42:17 +0000
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:05:26 +0100, Carel-Jan Engel
<cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Consider another option: Why not run a relatively small single instance
> server at the remote site, without RAC and RAC license? You can run
> fewer applications on the stanby, but after a real disaster you can
> expand the remote system and license it by then, or transfer the
> licenses of the lost primary site to the remote site. One of my
> customers runs on 4 CPU's (10g NAC, Not A Cluster) on the primary site,
> and 1 CPU on the remote site. It is enough to survive the first day,
> and if needed extra CPU's will be added to the remote server.
We have a similar story, in our case we were able to show that we
would only allow a small number of named users to use the system in
the event of a disaster, we would obviously consider the transfer
option if the disaster were an unrecoverable one (like the main
datacentre going up in scope), we therefore licensed on a named user
basis. Having a documented DR plan really helped here.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
