Re: Help: Standby database

"Joe Kazimierczyk" <joseph.kazimierczyk_at_bms.com> wrote in message news:3AF6C958.F5D5AA1_at_bms.com...
> I haven't tried the 8i standby features, and still rely on
> my own scripts developed for 7.3. For me, setting the redo
> log destination to 'mandatory' would not be an option. So,
> if the log destination is 'optional', how does oracle handle
> this? Is there a facility to notify someone of problems,
> and how does the standby get back in sync after an automatic
> log copy has failed? (I know I should rtfm, but just
> thought I'd ask).

You're right: 'mandatory' is a *really* bad choice for a remote archive destination.

If it's 'optional', and there's a failure, the destination is marked as being in error in v$archive_dest. It remains in error until you fix the problem and restart archiving (manually) to that destination. And no, there is *no* facility for thing to realise that it missed 10 logs whilst in error, and to do a bit of catching up. You have to copy the missing logs over yourself.

When you define your destinations, you can specify a 'reopen' parameter (measured in seconds, defaults to 300). In other words, Oracle will itself attempt to re-open a failed destination. But once again, that means it tries to reactivate the destination for *new* archives. It doesn't go back and try a fresh copy of archives that have already failed.

Details of failures are recorded in the alert log of your primary box. There's a fist-full of techniques for getting that information automatically trapped and sent to you. I dare say (but haven't looked) that the Enterprise Manager alert system might have an event for just such a possibility -at which point, email notification would be a doddle.

Regards
HJR
>
>
> > ...
> > Just FYI: the standby mechanism can be configured to retry and to
 consider
> > locations as optional or mandatory.
> > So you don't necessarily need to check whether sqlnet has copied your
 logs.
> > Oracle is robust enough to do that and deals with those errors when
> > configured correctly.
> > I wouldn't like to make an estimate how much developing your scripts
 would
> > cost, and they will be still (as you describe above) less dependable.
> > If I have to rely on NT's replication features, I would change to
 standby
> > immediately.
Received on Mon May 07 2001 - 20:52:57 CDT