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

  • From: Carel-Jan Engel <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:15:46 +0200

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Closson wrote:

>  
> ...ok, I want to steer this yet again onto a different runway
> if I may.  What if, just consider for a moment, that you could create
> a filesystem (CFS) snapshot with no interruption every 2 seconds ( yes,
> I'm talking about filesystem COW snapshots to the tune of well
> over 100,000 supported per filesystem) throughout an entire production
> day and pick any of those to be the new read/write filesystem and expire
> 
> all others in one fell swoop? 

I need to think about the consequences of all that. From the DBA
perspective: If I want to perform an incomplete recovery, how easy is it
to relay from time or SCN to a particular 'snapshot'? Or should I pick a
snapshot from before the desired recovery point, shutdown abort the
instance, pick the archives from another snapshot and then recover
untile time or SCN? And again, how easy is it for me as a DBA to
convince the SA's that they have to authorize me to do that?

I think I have a feeling of what you're aiming at, but the picture is
still a little vague. 

How does this relate to remote replication?

Can I have two filesystems with each one database on two storage boxes,
one at each site, and have one primary and one standby at each site? (A
way to overcome the license penalties of DG: both severs are in use, the
standby work isn't consuming that much resources in most cases). I.e can
two boxes replicate to each other (differents FS's of course)? Or is it
a replication stream that goes on a per storage box basis? 

More questions than answers in return, this time.

Best regards,

Carel-Jan Engel

===
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok)
===

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. oracle-l
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2006