Re: High availability for Oracle

He he he: you are right (synchronous/asynchronous). It seems that a redo based replication is much easier manageable than the Oracle's replication. (I don't say Oracle replication is bad or something like that).

If there is anything you know good or bad about this type of tools please let me know: I would like to have all the information handy when I get to present the options.

Thanks a lot Jim.

Valentin

"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily_at_attbi.net> wrote in message news:YBYFb.22464$VB2.51371_at_attbi_s51...
> Lets see, on the one hand you require it to be synchronous and on the
other
> hand you are looking into asynchronous. Me thinks you are into BSO.
(bright
> shiny objects - technology for technology's sake)
>
> NASDQ, has very high requirements and they have two RAC installations.
(one
> in Connecticut and the other in Maryland) They use asyc. replication on a
5
> second delay.
>
> There are very few installations that need this type of technology. An
> excellent backup plan, with archive logging to more than one location and
> practiced recovery will serve you far more than an overly complex
> implementation of technology.(which the DBA still needs to plan and
practice
> how to recover.) But alas very few DBAs are given the time and
requirement
> to practice recovery and fully document plans and all the possible
> scenarios.
>
> Remember the most dangerous part of the car is the nut behind the wheel.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Valentin Minzatu" <v.m.i.n.z.a.t.u.@.r.o.g.e.r.s.c.o.m> wrote in message
> news:KrYFb.159013$%TO.74064_at_twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > I was looking into this as well, but it seems to me that asynchronous
redo
> > log based replication would spare me of lots of work, such as creating
> > objects/schemas/ tablespaces, etc in 2 or many databases instead of
> creating
> > them in only one and then relying on the replication tool to propagate
> them
> > to the other databases.
> >
> > Valentin
> >
> > "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily_at_attbi.net> wrote in
message
> > news:NlYFb.460990$275.1351666_at_attbi_s53...
> > > The use RAC and Oracle replication in sycronse mode.(to a remote site)
> > > Jim
> > > "Valentin Minzatu" <v.m.i.n.z.a.t.u.@.r.o.g.e.r.s.c.o.m> wrote in
> message
> > > news:cjYFb.158955$%TO.9226_at_twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > RAC is considered as well, but only for HA. What I am looking for is
> > both
> > > HA
> > > > and disaster recovery, so probably it will be a combination of RAC
and
> > > > something else to cover the disaster eventuality.
> > > > Oracle's DataGuard is out of the question as it is not doing
real-time
> > or
> > > > near real time replication, as we need 0 or almost zero data loss.
> > > >
> > > > Valentin
> > > >
> > > > "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily_at_attbi.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > > news:O2YFb.182385$_M.834008_at_attbi_s54...
> > > > > How about RAC from Oracle.
> > > > > Jim
> > > > > "Valentin Minzatu" <valentinminzatu_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:c520825e.0312230542.35e35ab3_at_posting.google.com...
> > > > > > I am looking for a high availability/disaster recovery solution
> for
> > > > > > Oracle 9i on Solaris. The products I found by now are iReflect
and
> > > > > > SharePlex.
> > > > > > Has anybody evaluated these products?
> > > > > > Is there any comparison document/expertise for the two?
> > > > > > Are there any other "real-time" replication tools for Oracle on
> the
> > > > > > market?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Dec 23 2003 - 09:25:32 CST