Re: SRDF and Oracle Rac 11gR2
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 22:49:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CADsdiQjA1_Xc15dE72mhPURVXDx+jsgZg3HVn7LaKLuVd4SaKQ_at_mail.gmail.com>
Yes, just posted blog posts on EMC and Netapp at
http://www.oraclerealworld.com/database-thin-cloning-copy-on-write-emc/
http://www.oraclerealworld.com/database-thin-cloning-wafl-netapp/
and there is a bit of scripting examples for Netapp in the comments on
http://www.oraclerealworld.com/difference-between-storage-snapshots-and-database-virtualization/
Interested in hearing about personal experiences using EMC and Netapp. As far as I can tell, EMC really isn't a good platform for thin cloning Netapp can be used for thin cloning by the right team but is hard to roll out at an enterprise level.
Best
Kyle Hailey
http://kylehailey.com
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Kenny Payton <k3nnyp_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Just sent a post about snapshots and standby database which dovetails
> nicely into this. We use DG and recently moved some of them to NetApp
> with snapshots. Before snapshots we would stop apply, create a guaranteed
> restore point, test away and then flashback and restart apply and manage
> gaps. During the testing we were at risk of not having log files from the
> primary. Now we can just create a read/write copy of a snapshot ( NetApp
> flex clone) and use it for testing. If you can mount it on another
> machine or vm it's just the matter of mounting and starting. If not, you
> can clone it with a new file system name. All thin provisioned. At the
> end you drop the flex clone. The entire time your standby continues to
> apply.
>
> Kenny
> On Apr 10, 2014 4:56 PM, <Jay.Miller_at_tdameritrade.com> wrote:
>
>> What we do is maintain 2 sets of disks on the DR side. One is always
>> being synched, the second is occasionally broken off so we can bring the
>> databases up for testing and is then brought back into synch when testing
>> is complete.
>>
>>
>>
>> But yes, that is point in time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jay Miller
>>
>> Sr. Oracle DBA
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
>> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Zito
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 4:33 PM
>> *To:* Andrew Kerber
>> *Cc:* ORACLE-L
>> *Subject:* Re: SRDF and Oracle Rac 11gR2
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, it's been a long time, but you used to be able to split off a
>> mirror periodically and open the database read-only or read-write, then
>> shut it down and resync periodically (and the resync is obviously really
>> fast if it's read-only).
>>
>>
>>
>> But it's all point-in-time, and there's nothing comparable to active
>> dataguard.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> We are still in the evaluation phase, so I am trying to get the pros and
>> the cons figured out. It does not sound like an SRDF standby can be opened
>> in read only, though I could be wrong about that.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Zito <matt_at_crackpotideas.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, so, this is the eternal debate, yeah? Data Guard offers infinite
>> flexibility, the DBA can control everything, it's storage agnostic, you
>> have lots of knobs to twiddle, so on some levels that's perfect.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the flip side though, SRDF is application/OS agnostic. Anything that
>> gets written to any SRDF'ed LUN, regardless of database, filesystem, OS,
>> version, etc. ends up on the far side. Like magic.
>>
>>
>>
>> And SRDF is freakishly stable and mature. It's been baked and stable
>> for 15 years.
>>
>>
>>
>> So SRDF is often best when you might have different database
>> technologies, or different OSes, and you care about 100% reliability. It
>> also removes responsibility from managing storage replication from the DBA
>> team to some degree, since the array is responsible for pushing the bits
>> around.
>>
>>
>>
>> With regards to the complexity - once you've done a reference
>> architecture, gotten it working once, you just repeat it over and over
>> again. So that's a little bit of upfront effort, but I don't think in the
>> long run it counts for much, especially compared with the care and feeding
>> of DG.
>>
>>
>>
>> So I don't see it as an easy call either way - if you have a lot of
>> strong oracle skills in-house and want the flexibility, DG is the way to
>> go. If you want to not have to deal with data protection and care about
>> bulletproof reliability, or have a heterogenous environment, SRDF is great.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that makes sense. I've been looking at the EMC web site, and
>> haven't really found anything definitive one way or another. It really
>> sounds kind of tricky from what you are describing though, not sure I see a
>> real advantage over dataguard at that point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone used EMC's SRDF with Oracle RAC 11gR2? Any issues? Does it
>> work with RAC?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew W. Kerber
>>
>> 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
>>
>>
>>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Sat May 31 2014 - 05:49:34 CEST