Re: Multiplexing redologs - is there still need for it?

"Dusan Bolek" <pagesflames_at_usa.net> a écrit dans le message de news:1e8276d6.0403120815.155dbab6_at_posting.google.com...
> Today, I have run into an interesting discussion. The question was if
> there is a need for multiplexing redologs by database (as suggested in
> Admin manual) if this data are already mirrored (using RAID, disk
> arrays mirrors, Data Guard, SRDF etc.).
> I'm somehow paranoid, so I proposed tu use multiplexing, while other
> party stated that these bytes are already stored on eight different
> locations. That's sounds sensible, but I remember the issue a long
> time ago in a company far far away, where one of two multiplexed
> control files got corrupted and (of course) copies on both mirrored
> disc vere identical (means corrupted), second redo log on different
> volume group was OK. So in this case we would been doomed if these
> redologs weren't multiplexed.
> What's the opinion on this topic in the newsgroups? Preferably with
> some technical explanation.
>
> --
> Dusan Bolek
>
> Email: spambin_at_seznam.cz
> Pls add "Not Guilty" to the subject, otherwise your email is going to
> be burnt as a SPAM.

Multiplexing is useful at least for one thing: against rm.

Regards
Michel Cadot Received on Fri Mar 12 2004 - 11:05:27 CST