RE: EMC's SRDF vs Oracle DataGuard
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:54:21 -0500
We use SRDF to feed disaster recovery servers in a separate location. It works well, but you must consider the hit your write performance will take, especially given the great distance between locations. The laws of physics dictate a delay proportional to the distance the bits have to travel. Make sure that EMC gives you an estimate of the expected delay.
For high-volume OLTP, this delay can become most problematic on redo log writes. You'll want to ensure that your configuration (log _buffer in particular) allows log writer to stay busy.
Prime Services Databases Americas
One Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Steven K - MSHA
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:53 AM To: oracle-l
Subject: EMC's SRDF vs Oracle DataGuard
We are in the process of installing two EMC DMX-3 disk arrays. One local and one remote. (1000+ miles distant)
We have a requirement to have the production OLTP and warehouse databases standby in the remote location. Not real time, but close.
We are investigating the use of EMC's SRDF in place of data guard to maintain the remote Oracle environments. The main reason we are leaning this way is because the warehouse is fed from the oltp instance (materialized views) in addition to 4 or 5 outside sources. We can replicate the entire database/load/source files/etc environments and have a setup 'ready to start' with minimal modifications on our part.
Does anyone have experience maintaining standby databases using SRDF? Is EMC selling me a bill of goods?
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer:
Received on Wed Jan 23 2008 - 10:54:21 CST