Re: Standby database question

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.