Re: DR and data replication on Oracle 9i Standard

On 1 Dec, 14:58, Mark D Powell <Mark.Pow..._at_eds.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:59 am,cqmman<cqm..._at_yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hello,
>
> > We have two windows servers in different locations, and are currently
> > logshipping from one to the other, to provide an almost realtime copy
> > at the remote site. The theory being that we can bring it up with
> > minimal data loss in the event of losing the primary site. We have
> > very little in the way of Oracle skills (read, practically none).
>
> > We are purchasing a SAN solution at both the production and DR site
> > (too far from each otherfor sync writes unfortunately), and are
> > wondering if there is another way to doing this.
>
> > One suggestion has been to take snapshots of the oracle server and
> > replicate those snapshots (well the delta's) to the DR site every five
> > minutes (often mentioned with putting the Oracle DB in hot-backup mode
> > first).
>
> > Is this going to be a workable solution?
>
> > The reason for looking at solutions other than logshipping is that we
> > don't have any real oracle skills, so if we can do the data
> > replication at a lower level (without compromising data integrity) it
> > would be easier for us. However, It seems like despite the addition of
> > a SAN, we are better off ignoring that and using logshipping.
>
> > Thanks
>
> In order to get al the Oracle datafiles and logs in sync you would
> have to suspend the Oracle IO operations. Doing this once every 5
> minutes would probably not be conductive to performance. Log shipping
> is probably a better solution.
>
> Extended RAC is also a potential solution. How many miles apart are
> the two sites?
>
> How much data loss is considered acceptable?
>
> Traditional replication might be a solution though DG should be better
> though cost/benefit may be a consideration also.
>

Cheers

The sites are about 60 miles apart. Ideally there would be a couple of minutes (well, five) data loss at most. I guess that if the potential loss is any higher than that, then we should be sticking with logshipping anyway... Received on Sun Dec 02 2007 - 15:45:06 CST