Re: VM vs Data Guard for DB redundancy

Hi,

>> If the VM goes down, the thought is to bring up another VM and mount the
original storage (san)
This protects the service, but not the data. Like a cluster. Corruption or loss are not protected. This is not 'DB redundancy'.

That's different from Data Guard which protects the service and the data. RTO = few minutes (when in FSFO) and RPO=0 (if SYNC) Yes you need to license both servers (which is additional cost only for processor licences, not for NUP) but that0s the case fo any solution that protects the data.

However, you have 2700 databases (or PDBs) and you don't need to put all primaries on the same site. You can distribute them to optimize CPU usage on both sites. And thes if you are licenced in processor metric, you don't need to have 2x licences.

With VMs on same SAN you have higher RTO because it's manual operation (not easy to automate without risk to have two VMs with same ip addresses and on same storage) and RPO is the time to restore an backup.

Regards,
Franck.
Franck Pachot | Senior Consultant & Oracle Technology Leader | Oracle Certified Master 12*c* and Oracle ACE Director

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:05 PM Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On 07/19/2016 08:49 AM, Niall Litchfield wrote:
> > Given Oracle Corp's business practices and guidance regarding the
> > deployment of Oracle on VMs (and it's willingness to at least raise
> > non-contractual VM licensing "requirements" in audits) there's a
> > fairly significant appetite for risk and/or licensing exposure that is
> > required if one goes down the VM route as well.
>
> However, the situation is completely different if you use Oracle as the
> Cloud provider (rain maker). Cloud instances are much cheaper than the
> usual CPU licenses.
>
> --
> Mladen Gogala
> Oracle DBA
> Tel: (347) 321-1217
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

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