Re: Parallel Server & Standby Database

I think a standby database is a more elegant solution.

With 8i (maybe only Release 2 though - need to check) - you can even automate the application of redo logs from the main server.

So all in all, you get the benefits of physical separation and isolation, for an infrastructure that is barely more complicated than a simple server on its own!

Can't imagine how OPS in one location ( Ack!) could beat that.

David P. OCP (DBA) MCP (TCP/IP)

Glasgow, Scotland.

Miguel Cruz wrote:
>
> Billy Verreynne <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote:
> >> does not protect against disaster (fire/earthquake/sabotage). Whereas the
> >> standby is "remote" and "off-line" disaster recovery solution and then
> >> applicable (at least in theory) to the OPS as well.
> >
> > I still however maintain that any amount of money spend on a standby
> > database (in a remote location) to recover from these Acts of God,
> > Nature or friendly local survival group, are better spend on securing
> > the premises and the environment in which the OPS cluster runs in.
>
> I can very easily quantify (and control) the costs of keeping an off-site
> standby server.
>
> I can not even begin to imagine the costs I would incur trying to preclude
> damage from fire, planes crashing into the building, catastrophic
> construction errors, and any number of other things... with anything
> approaching the confidence I'd have that none of these things are remotely
> likely to happen in two places at once.
>
> miguel
  Received on Thu Jun 01 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT