(unknown charset) Re: DR with ASM

From: (unknown charset) Harel Safra <harel.safra_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 20:57:42 +0300
Message-ID: <4BE5A616.2_at_gmail.com>

(sending again - over quoting)
The OP stated that he's using synchronous replication. In such a replication a bit is not acknowledged as written to the storage array until it was written to both the local and the remote storage array (perhaps only to the cache). Since the same write ordering is preserved the scenario in which the main site fails should be the same as a server crash, i.e. oracle will do crash recovery when you start up the server in the backup site. So synchronous replication *should* be just as robust as server failure.

To test the "should" part, maybe a better way will be a forced split of the SRDF/SAN copy pair and then startup the database and ASM.

Harel Safra

On 08/05/2010 13:45, D'Hooge Freek wrote:
> Harel,
> Maybe a bit off topic, but can you say that such a procedure is really a realistic DR procedure?
> When you have a real disaster, the replication would be suddenly disrupted, so maybe a better test would be to disconnect the two storage boxes (not even stopping the replication gently).
> I'm wondering if this type of replication offers a bullet proof disaster recovery solution.
> It seems to me as being very vurnable to ASM corruption.
> regards,
> Freek D'Hooge
> Uptime
> Oracle Database Administrator
> email: freek.dhooge_at_uptime.be
> tel +32(0)3 451 23 82
> http://www.uptime.be
> disclaimer: www.uptime.be/disclaimer
> _______________________________________

Received on Sat May 08 2010 - 12:57:42 CDT

Original text of this message