Excellent point.
… And the whole topic needs to be evaluated in the context of the business
continuation needs both locally (ranging from a blown disk to a site disaster)
and regionally (ranging up to earthquakes, floods, and terrorism). Fine slicing
to minimize license costs *probably* pales in comparison to the insurance value
of doing things “right” to support business continuation, and that requires
building a specific plan for a specific business. Amongst VMware, Dataguard,
Delphix, Mladen’s company’s stuff, AXXANA, and more, first you build a
comprehensive plan for the whole business, then you construct a few possible
alternatives to support the technological infrastructure component (that
includes getting back your data and getting the database up and running and
accessible, but also includes the entire stack of access out to the actual
users.) The business also has to plan (one possible example) how to get enough
order entry clerks relocated to an area where cell phone service and wifi has
been restored. And so forth.
Fair alternatives have been presented throughout this thread, but I am boldly
claiming that you cannot define a best generic choice out of context of the
actual business requirements.
You CAN offer up a fairly small list of really good alternatives to consider,
but without context to frame the requirements you can neither determine whether
a given technological solution is “good enough” nor can you do the price
comparison for total cost of ownership.
Anyway, that is what I strongly believe.
mwf
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Andrew Kerber
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 6:59 AM
To: jack@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Franck Pachot; Mladen Gogala; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: VM vs Data Guard for DB redundancy
I would say both. I have set it up a few times. VMware on site a with the
ability to bring up another vm quickly if one goes down, data guarded to site b
with the same capability.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 20, 2016, at 12:00 AM, Jack van Zanen <jack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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,
If the VM goes down, the thought is to bring up another VM and mount the
original storage (san)
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.
