RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better? (specifically, when do most actual failovers really occur?)

  • From: Carel-Jan Engel <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:59:27 +0200

One customer runs Netapp/DG for the database, Snapmirror for everything

Another CT, running Oracle including iAS with IS database and another
'data' database runs rsync to keep all data that is not in the database

Oracle used to be very 'database centric'. These days more and more
stuff gets stored in a diarrhea of (XML)files somewhere in the dungeons
of the Oracle software tree. Ever tried to change a server name? Where
are the good days of real OFA?

But, ranning off track again. There are many ways to get to Rome. As
long as you keep the requirements in mind: getting in Rome, I have no
problem at all with any of them.

Best regards,

Carel-Jan Engel

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

On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 09:32 -0700, Kevin Closson wrote: 

>  >>>The OS mirror issue means that system admin must 
> >>>unfortunetely be quite involved in the failover process or 
> >>>DBA must take some tasks from sysadmin. I used to work in 
> >>>such an environment, for example, for me as DBA it was no 
> >>>issue to keep in synch and activate all scripts, jobs, etc 
> >>>at the standby machine.
> >>>
> herein lies the main concern I have.  DG is great for
> keeping a database replicated, yes, but upon switchover
> there needs to be the total environment there...all the
> stuff the site has **outside** the database for the workflow.
> Such things as UTL_FILE stuff, external tables, scripts,
> etc... seems storage level would be the only way to
> have the operations environment replicated.
> --
> //

Other related posts: