| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Is Replication Worth While?
Ron,
By having the users run the application on a local site you can improve performance. However the performance of replication could then become your problem depending on how often you push the data. If you feel the network is the bottleneck that you hope to eliminate by using local databases, you will still have problems since you have to push the data across that same network. You will also have the maintenance "headaches" of replication and any conflict resolution you may need to implement. But if you can get all these things working well, then yes, replication can be used to as a way to improve application performance. I would however, exhaust all other means first before starting down the replication path just for application performance improvement.
Nancy
-----Original Message-----
From: root_at_fatcity.com [mailto:root_at_fatcity.com]On Behalf Of Smith, Ron
L.
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:46 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Is Replication Worth While?
Just a note on the same topic.
My users are looking for ways to improve application performance. They have pretty much decided to go with replication. I am unsure that replication will add enough improvement to make it worth the time and money involved in the day to day maintenance. Has anyone implemented replication and shown a dramatic improvement in application response time?
Ron Smith
Database Administration
rlsmith_at_kmg.com
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:11 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I have just been "pulling my hair out" trying to get a Standby working "as advertised" whereby during the day it is a "Reporting" DB and then shut down at night for recovery (to bring up to dae with the Production DB).
The fact is that the moment you shut down the Standby, the ARCH and RFS
processes
loose their "hand-shake" and no archived redo files are sent whilst you are
recovering the Standby. When you start the Standby again (as Read Only)
there are further spurious problems until you start getting the arch. redo
files across again. In addition, if there are high rates of redo generation
during the day, there are further problems with transmitting the files
across.
So, in the end I set-up my own ftp based file transmission.
I have also set-up Replication for important Tables only and really, in my
opinion
it is only appropriate for data distribution and NOT a backup type of usage.
Martin
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 02 January 2001 23:51
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Dennis,
At our site, we use Replication (not for the entire DB, but only for important tables). But from the User group meetings, I get a feeling that Standby is the way to go and Oracle is trying hard to improve it in 9i....
Does that mean, Oracle prefers us to go Standby route in the long run? Can some experts share their wisdom on this?
Rama
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 7:45 AM
To: oracledba_at_quickdoc.co.uk
Greetings,
I am evaluating different High Availability options for our shop and I am
kind of undecided between Hot Standby and Advanced Replication(AR) :
It seems to me that Multi-master replication is a much better choice for
us -- all we need is to set up two master sites
with one of them read-only. Also it seems to be fairly easy to set up using
Replication Manager ( it is up and running in my test instances after only
one day's work including reading the docs). This will prevent conflicts and
give us the extra benefit of a reporting instance. Hot Standby, on the
other hand, might take longer to set up and does not provide
read capability ( yes, I know in 8i you can open for read, but it does not
apply the logs when it is in readable mode, right? ).
So what caveats are associated with AR that drive people to use Standby at
all? I know there might be problems with AR if the transaction volume is
high. The databases here typically generates less than 100M of redo
everyday.
TIA
Dennis Meng
Database Administrator
Focal Communications
847-954-8328
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Rama Malladi
INET: rmalladi_at_inteliant.com
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Liststo: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Liststo: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Liststo: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 12:05:19 CST
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
 |
 |