Re: Hi again

From: Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:54:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJvnOJZu1fnoO+qRUKKCRvNPH-R8XbXCvVk3LyBvBNnXb1zjmA_at_mail.gmail.com>

I have been involved in a few switchover tests. Depending on the type of company, there may well be regulatory requirements with regard to failover/switchover testing. Most of these are quarterly or bi-annual.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com> wrote:

> It seems you've gotten good advice on the encryption.
>
> One side issue: You mention a "primary site" plus one physical standby.
>
> Since this is a new project, the time is right to consider the systems
> being
> symmetric with a reasonably frequent planned switchover, including "close
> to
> the database servers" application servers at both sites.
>
> If your intent is merely data recovery in the event of a site or regional
> disaster, that may be overkill, since it is quite possible to test data
> recovery without doing a switch or re-instantiation.
>
> But if your intent is business continuation, such as for a global
> operation,
> then you really do want switching the live site location to be a practiced
> and well understood process from network locations of the intranet and
> internet access points all the way through database access. And don't
> forget
> duplication of any monitoring and notification workstations.
>
> Once a week or once a month might be enough to keep you in practice, as
> long
> as you also do a pair of swaps under routine conditions when there is a
> software release or equipment change.
>
> Finding out that you missed the implication of a software or hardware
> change
> when the "primary" site is in flames or a dusty crater is not good timing.
> Finding out that a switch won't work when you really don't have to go
> through with the switch is a much better plan.
>
> When a project is new, there is much less cost to putting this policy in
> effect and it is natural to provision the sites equally. If management then
> judges that business continuation assurance is not worth the ongoing cost,
> then at least it is done with eyes wide open and a clear understanding that
> being able to get nearly all the data restored is very different from being
> able to continue business operations.
>
> Regards,
>
> mwf
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
> On Behalf Of Robertson Lee - lerobe
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:01 AM
> To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Subject: RE: Hi again
>
> To confirm, this will be on 11g r2
>
> And many thanks for those who have replied thus far
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robertson Lee - lerobe
> Sent: 18 August 2011 13:58
> To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Subject: Hi again
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I haven't been around for a while but have been given a new project to set
> up and I thought I would ask all you good folks on here for some guidance.
> :-)
>
> Basically, what I need to do (or at least investigate initially), is to set
> up a DataGuard configuration, Primary plus one Physical Standby and while
> the data within the database itself is not to be encrypted, they have asked
> if encrypted redo transporting is an option.
>
> Never done anything like this before (lucky me eh?) so if anyone could
> offer
> suggestions/white papers/idiot guides etc I would be most grateful
>
> I have seen various docs showing me how to set up the actual data guard
> piece which seems fairly straightforward, I guess its more the encryption
> piece I cannot really nail down through Google etc....
>
> I assume, if it is possible it is going to need Advanced Security Option
> installing ?
>
> Oracle 10gr2 (or possibly 11g, waiting to find out for definite) on
> RHEL. V 5.2
>
> Cheers
>
> Lee
>
> .
> ***************************************************************************
> The information contained in this communication is confidential, is
> intended
> only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally
> privileged.
>
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited.
>
> If you have received this communication in error, please resend this
> communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of
> it from your computer system.
>
> Thank You.
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew W. Kerber

'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'

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

Received on Thu Aug 18 2011 - 10:54:09 CDT