RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?

  • From: <Jay.Miller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:31:53 -0400

We have about 20 or so at the moment (some will go away soon) and I'd
say that the main overhead is testing failover.  When the standby runs
as a standby you don't really need to do anything with it other than run
a monitoring script to notify you if logs get out of sync.

But I'll admit that the thought of swinging 80 databases from production
site to standby site and then back again is a little daunting, depending
on how many DBAs you have to do the work.  

Jay Miller
Sr. Oracle DBA

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kevin Closson
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:36 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?

 >>>alternative DR solutions. For people that do care about near 
>>>continuous availability DG is really quite cheap - even if 
>>>you didn't buy EE and is (reasonably) easy to manage. It 
>>>helps that it is a somewhat old and reliable technology as well.

...the thread I started was about the practicality of using DG
for a lot of databases.  Maybe there is nobody on list that
has more than, say, 10 database that need DR, but does the
comment "(reasonably) easy to manage" hold fast if we are
talking about providing DR for, say, 10 or 20 databases?

One of our accounts has over 80 databases that need DR and
I must say that in my mind chewing on crushed glass would
bring more pleasure than trying to deal with 80 primary/standby
DG relationships... It just seems to me that at some number
of databases, the only humanly possible way to get DR would
be at the storage level... thoughts ?



Other related posts: