Re: options for read only mirror with 10g SE or SE One
- From: Marc Slemko <identd@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:36:56 -0700
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:29:41 -0700, Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:28:33 -0700, Marc Slemko <identd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The current business requirements for this application make using
> > enterprise edition a very hard sell from the cost perspective right
> > now, just to get the ability to have some type of read only
> > replicated/standby/etc. database. This is especially true given that
> > Microsoft SQL Server includes reasonably usable replication support in
> > their standard edition.
>
> If it is similar to the Sybase replication engine that it is based on, it
> is one place where SQL shines.
>
> The Sybase replication engine was more robust five years
> ago than anything Oracle currently has. (Sorry Pete ;)
>
> Q: Why do you want failover? Availability?
>
> Would RAC be more suitable? There are some pretty good licensing
> deals for rack on SMB servers. store.oracle.com has details.
The primary thing we want is a secondary database that can be used for
read-only queries, mostly adhoc.
A secondary desire is to have a physically seperate system that will
be unimpacted by any hardware issues or block corruption on the
primary.
RAC is more complexity than we want right now, and only partly meets
these needs.
This environment may or may not be in an active/passive failover
cluster using third party software to startup the instance on a second
node if the first node fails for availability purposes, but that still
relies on the same storage and only allows one active node at once.
Heck, even mysql provides more or less usable basic replication...
Thanks for your response.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
