Re: Options for wide-area database?

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1076014857.358088_at_yasure>...
> Ernest Siu wrote:
>
> > What are the pros/cons for the following options in implementing a
> > wide-area oracle (e.g. 100-1000 miles apart)? In terms of cost,
> > performance and data consistency?
> >
> > 1. Single-site single-server (big!) with remote clients
> > 2. Single-site multi-servers using RAC with remote clients
> > 3. Single-site server(s) (option 1 or 2) with advanced replication
> > onto remote hosts
> > 4. Multi-site servers with RAC and wide-area SAN
> >
> > Any comment/suggestion?
> > Ernest
>
> What are you trying to achieve? What is the cost per minute of downtime?
> In dollars? Without this information any answer is meaningless.
>
> 1. Bad idea unless you don't believe in Murphy's Law. Spend your money
> on hardware.
>
> 2. Bad idea unless you don't believe in Murphy's Law. Spend less money
> on hardware.
>
> 3. Reasonably good but spend your money on network.
>
> 4. Duplicate the SAN, or use NAS to save money, and spend your money
> on network.
>
> My approach would be two data centers at least 1000 miles apart. Both
> with a NAS or SAN and each with two or more RAC nodes. At each site use
> DataGuard.

I second the comments about the network, after trying to maintain a standby where the backed up db is much larger than the pipe.

I disagree about the NAS, although concede I might just have had bad luck.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html