From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Wed Jan 5 12:50:20 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air189.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j05IoKR07912 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:50:20 -0600 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air189.startdedicated.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j05IoJn07906 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:50:19 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 2CB1072C267; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09446-99; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:56:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 1CFCE72C830; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:56:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5164A49467308C45AD50661F8CFDC3431E11BF70@s30342g004004.wdc.cingular.net> To: "'cjpengel.dbalert@xs4all.nl'" , oracle-l@freelists.org Subject: RE: About standby redo logs Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:52:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain From: "Loughmiller, Greg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 14395 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: greg.loughmiller@cingular.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: greg.loughmiller@cingular.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org If I may ask a similar question, yet not exactly related to this thread.. What are the advantages of using LGWR as compared to the ARCH process for the transport mechanism of the redo data to the standby database? Thanks Greg -----Original Message----- From: Carel-Jan Engel [mailto:cjpengel.dbalert@xs4all.nl] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:55 AM To: oracle-l@freelists.org Subject: Re: About standby redo logs Kamus, Oracle documents that one needs at least the # of redo log groups on the primary + 1 on the standby, when standby redologs are used. I never saw a logswitch happen to another standby redologfile than the one previously used, so your observation is quite normal, though somewhat unexpected regarding the documented requirements. DG always seems to reuse the same logfile. I guess it has to do with the speed of the ARCH on the standby. I need to investigate this further if I get a chance on a testsystem, before I can get more conclusive on this. Because normally DG-configurations have real HA requirements (if not, why was DG implemented), I tend to stay on the safe side and follow the Oracle docs. It's a little bit CYA, I admit, so be it. Best regards, Carel-Jan Engel === If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok) === Upcoming appearances: * Jan 27, 2005: London, UKOUG Unix SIG: Data Guard Best Practices * Feb 9-10, 2005: Denver, RMOUG Training Days: Data Guard Performance Issues * Mar 6-10, 2005: Dallas, Hotsos Symposium: Data Guard Performance Issues On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 15:33, Kamus wrote: > I create 4 standby redo log groups, and use LGWR in primary site to > transfer redo data, all are good. > But when I query the V$STANDBY_LOG view, > I found that only the status column of GROUP# 4(the first group of my > standby redo logs) value is "ACTIVE" while all the others(5-7) are > "UNASSIGNED". > also, only GROUP# 4's sequence# is a value greate than 0 > and THREAD# is 1, all others are 0 and 0. > > Any explains. * -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l