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

  • From: "Lawie, Duncan" <duncan.lawie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Carel-Jan Engel" <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:34:58 +0100


Kevin said <<   
        ...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 the 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...

Can I add to the questions here?  

Say I want to push database 42 back by 2 hours 16 minutes and 42 seconds.  If 
it is sharing a filesystem with a bunch of other databases which are running 
just fine, how do I load up the old files for database 42, if the snapshot is 
at the filesystem level?  I'm reading your mail as saying the snapshot from 
time x would be a mountable filesystem?  If so, do I then need to copy the 
files back to my "real" filesystem, or do I change my database control file to 
point to the new mount?  The latter would appear to gradually fragment the few, 
large filesystem approach.  The former doesn't seem to save me time against 
some other recovery mechanisms.


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications 


Other related posts: