Re: rac vs dataguard
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:19:36 +0100
What's your schema design like? If you have a well designed schema/schemas with primary and foreign keys, fairly standard data types and so on then logical standby works surprisingly well in low to moderate volume environments. If you don't then performance degrades badly and/or you find it doesn't work at all. RAC admin is definitely simpler than logical standby admin. Personally, at 10.2.0.4 even if I was going down the logical sql recreation route for reporting purposes then I'd almost certainly recommend streams with downstream capture (similar caveats to schema design, data types and performance apply), unless you had a somewhat unusual situation with lots of schemas and reporting required on all of them (something like ebusiness uite only with a decent schema design).
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:44 PM, ed lewis<eglewis71_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> We are planning to implement a 2 - node rac cluster, EE 10.2.0.4,
> solaris 10,
> using ASM.
> The plan is to also use dataguard to create a logical standby db for
> I was considering the idea of creating a 3rd member of the rac cluster,
> dedicate it to reporting, instead of using dataguard. There would be the
> cost for rac, but the adminstration may be simpler.
> Has anyone done this ? What are the pros and cons ?
> Thanks for your feedback.
> ed lewis
-- Niall Litchfield Oracle DBA http://www.orawin.info -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Jul 16 2009 - 07:19:36 CDT