Thanks to all for the clarifications. There were only small fraction of tables that do no have forcelogging enabled. Regards. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ric Van Dyke <ric.van.dyke@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > The apply process will apply what ever it gets from the primary. If there > are data integrity issues, then you will have to sort that out when you try > to active the standby. > > > > So the answers to your direct questions are NO and NO. > > > > Like Jared said, this is not a technical issue. Dataguard will run just > happy as a pig in slop no matter what the setting of FORCE LOGGING on the > primary. You just might not be able to use the database when you try to > active it if it’s not turned on. If they want to run with out turning on > FORCED LOGGING then they are kidding them selves about having a DG site. > And you and your IT staff better have that in writing so they don’t think > they do have a DG site when they really don’t. > > > > How much stuff is running with NOLOGGING anyway? And does everyone really > know what NOLOGGING does? It may not be doing what they think it is doing > anyway. > > > > ----------------------- > > Ric Van Dyke > > Hotsos Enterprises > > ----------------------- > > > > *Hotsos Symposium * > > *March 7 – 11, 2010 * > > *Be there.* > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: > oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *sanjeev m > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:45 PM > *To:* Mathias Magnusson > *Cc:* oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > *Subject:* Re: Manual Standby as alternative to dataguard > > > > They are expecting performance issues. I agree this has to be tested with > them after enabling it in non-production evironment and if there are still > performance issues really then move off those segments to a different > tablespace,Enable force logging for the rest of the tablespaces atleast.We > will set the expectation with business that those objects with nologging > cant be recovered on activation of standby > > My question is > > > > (*) will the Dataguard managed recovery itself have any issues if there is > noforce logging on primary? > > (*) In other words is there any difference in implementing using manual > method versus Dataguard (MRP) with nologging as long as there is no impact > to log apply(recovery) on standby. > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Mathias Magnusson < > mathias.magnusson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What kind of problem does the business see with force logging? What > transactions do you have that they require nologging on that is critical to > the business? > > > > That is, are you fighting a theoretical or real problem? Force logging is > that because it is needed. You cannot invent data that is now written to the > log files. Manual or not, you'll have the same need to have logging occur. > > > > I think you are better off dealing with the actual issue, rather than > something that seems to an opinion not based on hard data. > > > Mathias > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:41 PM, sanjeev m <sanjeevorcle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > At our site we are having difficulty getting approval from business to > enable force logging on database objects. > > > > We plan to implement DR using manual method ie (shipping archive logs to DR > site through cronjob, performing manual recovery on mounted standby > controlfile) > > > > I understand without forcelogging all nologging transactions wont be > recoverable. Is this true during recovery or after activating the standby? > > > > Is forcelogging a mandatory pre-requisite for implementing Dataguard? Has > any of you have experience implementing Dataguard without force logging > enabled. > > > > Will there be any issues during managed recovery if it encounters a > nologging change? Wont we be hitting same issue if we are doing the recovery > manually as opposed to MRP process? > > > > Regards, > > Sanjeev. > > > > >