Re: DataGuard vs Hardware mirroring for DR

From: <shweta.kaparwan_at_googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <6cd96b10-b5cc-4236-9e8a-cf01785f64d9_at_l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>



On Feb 19, 11:05 am, Noons <wizofo..._at_yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> emdproduct..._at_hotmail.com wrote,on my timestamp of 19/02/2009 9:44 AM:
>
> > Dear Group,
>
> > We are planning for DR site.  We have two options, one is DataGuard,
> > another is using Hardware SAN mirroring.
>
> > Is there any pros and cons in terms of this two methods?
>
> Of course there are.
> Michel already pointed out a few important things.
> Let me jsut add a few more.
>
> We have done mostly hardware SAN mirroring up to now, with sync replication.
> That's for both Oracle, Lotus Jokes and MS SQL.
>
> But it's getting expensive: the volume keeps increasing and the pipe between the
> two sites is fixed capacity.  That means we now need to upgrade it.  And the
> cost for the upgrade is prohibitive.
> So we are now looking at DataGuard: its main advantage is the volume that needs
> to be transferred across is much, much less than pure SAN-based sync writing.
>
> Log shipping - the core technology around which DG evolved - is a lot less
> dependent on wide pipes than pure database page write-mirroring.
>
> Like so many other things, it's all about cost-effectiveness.
>
> Our experience so far is:
>
> - up to a certain volume, SAN mirroring can be cost effective and is certainly
> dirt easy to setup and get going.
> - after that, DG becomes more efficient, less costly and the cost of setup
> becomes justifiable.
>
> What that point is, is highly dependent on your workload, data volume, setup,
> overall number of dbs on mirroring, etc.

I loved to read this :

http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:39960485246162

By

Regards

Shweta. Received on Thu Feb 19 2009 - 06:50:48 CST

Original text of this message