Re: Hot-Stdby-DB vs. Parallel-Server

In article <3a7018d2.18862983_at_News.CIS.DFN.DE>,   aschlager_at_kaindl.com (Andreas Schlager) wrote:
> Ahem, I forgot:
>
> Is the only alternative way to the hot-standby-db the Oracle Parallel
 Server?
>
> Are there major disadvantages to this?
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Andy
>

We have been running OPS since 1994/5 and we like it. If you use the second instance only when the first instance fails then you do not have any pcm lock issues; however you must have a clustered machine/disk setup though it is possible to locate the machines physically very far apart and with a mirrored disk array at each machine location OPS can be part of an in-place diaster recovery plan.

I have heard that it is also possible to use hardware (disk system) mirrowing to write every write IO to two separate disk devices with the second being a mirrow of the first. If the machine crashed the network people toggle something that makes the second machine which is named the same and is set up exactly like the first box online and start the database. As far as Oracle knows it is just being restarted after a crash and life proceeds as normal. I am not sure how you reconfigure the original system once it is brought back but you would have to be able to the disk system reverse the way it was mirrowing for this to be of practical value.

--
Mark D. Powell  -- The only advice that counts is the advice that
 you follow so follow your own advice --


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/