Re: Manual Standby as alternative to dataguard

There were only small fraction of tables that do no have forcelogging enabled.

Regards.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ric Van Dyke <ric.van.dyke_at_hotsos.com>wrote:

> The apply process will apply what ever it gets from the primary. If there
> are data integrity issues, then you will have to sort that out when you try
> to active the standby.
>
>
>
> So the answers to your direct questions are NO and NO.
>
>
>
> Like Jared said, this is not a technical issue. Dataguard will run just
> happy as a pig in slop no matter what the setting of FORCE LOGGING on the
> primary. You just might not be able to use the database when you try to
> active it if it’s not turned on. If they want to run with out turning on
> FORCED LOGGING then they are kidding them selves about having a DG site.
> And you and your IT staff better have that in writing so they don’t think
> they do have a DG site when they really don’t.
>
>
>
> How much stuff is running with NOLOGGING anyway? And does everyone really
> know what NOLOGGING does? It may not be doing what they think it is doing
> anyway.
>
>
>
> -----------------------
>
> Ric Van Dyke
>
> Hotsos Enterprises
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
> *Hotsos Symposium *
>
> *March 7 – 11, 2010 *
>
> *Be there.*
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *sanjeev m
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:45 PM
> *To:* Mathias Magnusson
> *Cc:* oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> *Subject:* Re: Manual Standby as alternative to dataguard
>
>
>
> They are expecting performance issues. I agree this has to be tested with
> them after enabling it in non-production evironment and if there are still
> performance issues really then move off those segments to a different
> tablespace,Enable force logging for the rest of the tablespaces atleast.We
> will set the expectation with business that those objects with nologging
> cant be recovered on activation of standby
>
> My question is
>
>
>
> (*) will the Dataguard managed recovery itself have any issues if there is
> noforce logging on primary?
>
> (*) In other words is there any difference in implementing using manual
> method versus Dataguard (MRP) with nologging as long as there is no impact
> to log apply(recovery) on standby.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Mathias Magnusson <
> mathias.magnusson_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What kind of problem does the business see with force logging? What
> transactions do you have that they require nologging on that is critical to
> the business?
>
>
>
> That is, are you fighting a theoretical or real problem? Force logging is
> that because it is needed. You cannot invent data that is now written to the
> log files. Manual or not, you'll have the same need to have logging occur.
>
>
>
> I think you are better off dealing with the actual issue, rather than
> something that seems to an opinion not based on hard data.
>
>
> Mathias
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:41 PM, sanjeev m <sanjeevorcle_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> At our site we are having difficulty getting approval from business to
> enable force logging on database objects.
>
>
>
> We plan to implement DR using manual method ie (shipping archive logs to DR
> site through cronjob, performing manual recovery on mounted standby
> controlfile)
>
>
>
> I understand without forcelogging all nologging transactions wont be
> recoverable. Is this true during recovery or after activating the standby?
>
>
>
> Is forcelogging a mandatory pre-requisite for implementing Dataguard? Has
> any of you have experience implementing Dataguard without force logging
> enabled.
>
>
>
> Will there be any issues during managed recovery if it encounters a
> nologging change? Wont we be hitting same issue if we are doing the recovery
> manually as opposed to MRP process?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sanjeev.
>
>
>
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l