Home -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Do we need multiple REDOLOG member if it is already on SAN box?

Re: Do we need multiple REDOLOG member if it is already on SAN box?

From: joel garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9db3ea01-05d3-4dd4-9b5e-8ac485cb1dab_at_18g2000prd.googlegroups.com> 





On Apr 29, 11:33 am, charles <dshprope..._at_gmail.com> wrote:


> Dear group,

>

> I have a question.  I have a Oracle 10.2.0.3 database, everything is

> on SAN storage ( Raid 10). When i am asking for another LUN for 2nd

> redolog members, he told me we have already mirrored for u at the san

> level.  So he thinks it is not necessary to have two members of

> redolog in each group.

>

> Could somebody share some idea with me?

>

> Thanks




We have seen numerous times over the years here and in other fora
where people discover their mirrored san can indeed fail, not to
mention their adminstrators.  The redo log is the most critical piece
of the Oracle database.  Redundancy is good for critical pieces, even
to extremes - a mirrored san is still a single point of failure, so
we're not even being extreme with multiplexing here.  Software and
hardware mirroring solve different problems.  Oracle can be smarter
with multiple group members.


http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14231/onlineredo.htm#i1006249



Lose redo and you lose data.  Lose data and you fail.



jg

--
_at_home.com is bogus.
What if you are a horse's ass in human form?
http://dba-oracle.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-if-you-are-horse-in-human-form.html


Received on Fri Apr 29 2011 - 16:07:03 CDT












Original text of this message