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

  • From: Carel-Jan Engel <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:11:41 +0200

On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 15:57 +0100, Niall Litchfield wrote:

> On 9/19/06, Carel-Jan Engel <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, agreed. It's not very cheap. Oracle should address that. In May, at 
> > the end of FY, negotiations may result in significant discounts for 
> > standbys. If seen discounts varying from 100 - 25%.
> I'd wouldn't be comparing to RAC, but evaulating the cost of lost systems and 
> the cost of
> manageability of alternative DR solutions. 

Phrased very well, thank you Niall! I couldn't more agree. Compare the
premium you should pay to an insurance company for the losses related to
a system outage with the 'premium' you pay for a solid DR solution.
Archive shipping to a remote system (either SE vanilla hot standby
(which must be licenses under the same conditions as EE/DG) or via
'real' DG0 is a very robust and secure way of protecting your data. My
viewing angle was choosen because of the discussions I get involved in
more and more, where people get offered RAC as the ultimate solution.
Recently one of my CTs was visited by an Oracle sales representative,
who after the usual chit chat appeared to have only one point on the
agenda: How can I sell you RAC. This CT was wise: he said 'we will never
consider RAC, what else is it you want to talk about' and the visit was
over pretty soon (Now I write it down: a nice exapmple for !)
Best regards,

Carel-Jan Engel

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

Other related posts: