I would second this....with VM you still only have one copy of the data so
if the SAN goes belly up, that is it.
In my opinion dataguard is the best options out of the two provided. As
mentioned before with TAF setup you dont need to make any changes to your
applikcation. I would suggest the standby to reside in a different
datacenter or at least SAN.
Jack van Zanen
-------------------------
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the
sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this
e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
Thank you for your cooperation
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Franck Pachot <franck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
the original storage (san)If the VM goes down, the thought is to bring up another VM and mount
This protects the service, but not the data. Like a cluster. Corruption or
loss are not protected. This is not 'DB redundancy'.
That's different from Data Guard which protects the service and the data.
RTO = few minutes (when in FSFO) and RPO=0 (if SYNC)
Yes you need to license both servers (which is additional cost only for
processor licences, not for NUP) but that0s the case fo any solution that
protects the data.
However, you have 2700 databases (or PDBs) and you don't need to put all
primaries on the same site. You can distribute them to optimize CPU usage
on both sites. And thes if you are licenced in processor metric, you don't
need to have 2x licences.
With VMs on same SAN you have higher RTO because it's manual operation
(not easy to automate without risk to have two VMs with same ip addresses
and on same storage) and RPO is the time to restore an backup.
Regards,
Franck.
Franck Pachot | Senior Consultant & Oracle Technology Leader | Oracle
Certified Master 12*c* and Oracle ACE Director
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:05 PM Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 07/19/2016 08:49 AM, Niall Litchfield wrote:
Given Oracle Corp's business practices and guidance regarding the
deployment of Oracle on VMs (and it's willingness to at least raise
non-contractual VM licensing "requirements" in audits) there's a
fairly significant appetite for risk and/or licensing exposure that is
required if one goes down the VM route as well.
However, the situation is completely different if you use Oracle as the
Cloud provider (rain maker). Cloud instances are much cheaper than the
usual CPU licenses.
--
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
Tel: (347) 321-1217
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
