Re: Timestamp of an SCN

  • From: Sandeep Dubey <dubey.sandeep@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Pete Sharman <peter.sharman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:11:54 -0500

Y(standby) can ssh to X, but X cant ssh to Y. X will need a hop server
to do so. But Y can ssh/scp directly from X. So Y (standby) copies the
files from X (primary) and applies. This is what network security guys
gave me to work on. It's messy I know. One of the toughest
requirements I worked on.

Log files are switched every 10 minutes to ensure data loss of no more
than 10 minutes.


On 2/9/06, Pete Sharman <peter.sharman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OK, now you've confused me - not hard to do!  :)
> Let me see if I have this right.  You have a primary site at location X and a 
> standby at location Y.  You have no access from X to Y.  How are you getting 
> the logs from X to Y then?  Carrier pigeon?  ;)
> The only way I can see that working is if you have some way of getting the 
> files - tape or whatever - and then you apply them at the standby.  If that's 
> the case, then not only is delay in transfer and apply acceptable, so too 
> must data loss be.  That doesn't sound like a Good Idea (TM).
> Can you clarify my confusion, please?
> Pete
> "Controlling developers is like herding cats."
> Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook
> "Oh no, it's not.  It's much harder than that!"
> Bruce Pihlamae, long-term Oracle DBA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Sandeep Dubey
> Sent: Friday, 10 February 2006 6:24 AM
> To: Pete Sharman
> Cc: Chris Stephens; oracle list; Peter Ross Sharman
> Subject: Re: Timestamp of an SCN
> I have to provide a DR to a cusotmer's production (primary) database.
> Primary is not in our secured physical location, we can not proivde
> access and sqlnet from primary to DR. Hence we have to pull from
> standby and not push from primary. Delay in transfer and apply is
> acceptable under given control.
> Sandeep
> On 2/9/06, Pete Sharman <peter.sharman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > One has to ask why you are running in non-managed mode anyway?
> --

Other related posts: