RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- From: "Kevin Closson" <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Laimutis.Nedzinskas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:43:14 -0700
>>>take per 1h for example?
>>>
>>>If you go into
>>>http://www.scaleabilities.co.uk/book/ScalingOracle8i-Creative
Commons.htm
>>>then you can find a nice example of HA design at the end of
great book :-) I contributed this to James' work because I was
working in the Oracle port to Sequent HW at the time:
http://www.scaleabilities.co.uk/book/CH08.html#996744
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
- » RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)
