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

  • From: "Kevin Closson" <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "Carel-Jan Engel" <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:23:55 -0700

        >>>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
        ...just a different angle... logical corruptions can be handled
with the
snapshots and the storage is replicating to the DR, yes, you
could have
a hundred databases in a few huge filesystems all nicely replicated at
storage level, but if you want to take database number 42 at the primary
site and go back in time, you have hundreds or thousands (if desired) 
filesystem snapshots to choose from... of course the real cats-meow is
writeable snapshots (AKA clones) so that you could take any of the
at the primary site, mount it and start an instance off it and do what
you wish
...but, uh...for the stack I work on that is a bit too far out in the

Also, with storage replication, it is more than conceivable to have a
copy of the data at the standby site...break that off, mount import it
the cluster, mount it and go to work on it ...

Just thoughts, but from a more general approach than the pure-Oracle
do devils here, just thoughts ...

As an aside, you can imagine how important thousands of snapshots a day
are for
people's home directories :-)  What, you say? You need a copy of that
power-point slide from 2 hours 16 minutes and 42 seconds ago? :)

Other related posts: