Re: Best practice for Dataguard in 10g?
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:42:23 +1000
Ahbaid Gaffoor wrote,on my timestamp of 6/09/2009 7:13 PM:
> I've used it for 10.2.0.3 (hit a few bugs), 10.2.0.4 with a few patches
> was stable, and I've been running it on a few 184.108.40.206 systems.
Thanks. We're in 10.2.0.3 - 11g will be the next step up, so it's a no-no for us at the moment: had my fair share of 10g bugs, don't need anymore! :)
> system failover to another in under 40 seconds (that's my worst case,
> best case was 10 secs) on a hevily used prod system, without any manual
> intervention was incredible.
Yes, but you see: incredible and other such wow-factors are very low in our list of priorities. ;)
> Even if you did the steps manually, you
> can't beat it. I was able to get a db failoved over to another
> datacenter in a power loss event in 35 seconds using FSFO..
The good thing is time to failover is immaterial to us. This is a DW, not a OLTP system: the failover taking seconds or minutes is really not an issue at all. What I don't want is for it to kick in because of a glitch in the network, somewhere else. There are a number of feeds into and out of the DW, worldwide, that would be seriously affected by spurious triggering.
> so I'd recommend it from 10.2.0.4 upwards
Cool. Thanks heaps for that info.
> I still have to dig into the FSFO specific 11g enhancements, but I do
> know you can control failover programatically now.
Indeed. Just finished the 11g Dataguard admin course and we did a few as part of the labs. Very nice and I like the concept of the application itself being able to initiate failover - opens up a lot of possibilities, not necessarily related to network connectivity or db availability.
-- Cheers Nuno Souto in sunny Sydney, Australia dbvision_at_iinet.net.au -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Sun Sep 06 2009 - 04:42:23 CDT