Re: Standby database question

Actually, I believe Veritas' Volume Replicator provides a solution to this. As long as the transaction gets logged to your online redo logs via a commit, it is simultaneously replicated to an off-site location in real time. Of course, this is an expensive, enterprise-level solution. What do companies like Fidelity use? They simply can't afford to lost data, not even a few minutes worth right?

Even Veritas' cluster server can't do this because the database files are shared.

In article <8r0fu3$rmd$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,   oratune_at_aol.com wrote:
> In article <8r0b2p$nah$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>,
> kal121_at_my-deja.com wrote:
> > True or false:
> >
> > With a standby database you have to be willing to tolerate some data
> > loss. Since you are only copying over arch files to the standby box,
 if
> > your primary database goes down in a smoking hole, you will lose the
> > data in the online redo logs that never got archived, and therefore,
> > never made it to the standby.
> >
> > What kind of "HA" solution is this???
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> This is true, however if you expect to recover any non-logged
> transactions via any other scenario you are sadly mistaken. No matter
> what type of recovery strategy you implement any transactions not
> archived or written to redo logs are lost, period. So, let's say
> you've done a full cold backup last night and you're running in
> ARCHIVELOG mode and your database fries without the common decency to
> write out the pending transactions so you can have them you lose them.
> It doesn't matter if you're running a standby database or if you have
> the most fault-tolerant, media-intensive recovery strategy ANY
 scenario
> will lose the recent, non-archived, non-logged transactions.
>
> --
> David Fitzjarrell
> Oracle Certified DBA
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy. Received on Thu Sep 28 2000 - 17:30:37 CDT