Re: Help: Standby database

"Casey Dyke" <cdyke_at_excitehome.com.au> wrote in message news:3AF257E6.E700BE13_at_excitehome.com.au...
> >
> > select file_name
> > from v$archived_log
> > where seq#=(
> > select max(SEQ#)
> > from v$archived_log
> > where archived='TRUE'
> > );
> >

>
> We do the same thing, but archived (unless I missed something) is a
> varchar(3) column - hence we use "YES".   Same def in 8.0.5,8.0.6.8.1.7.
>
> I might add that although the 8i improvements are pretty nice, you'd still
> need to consider checking that sql*net has indeed successfully transferred
> your logs.  With our scripts (run as daemons), network errors (and many
> others) are detected upon next loop and propagated out via our alerting
> system to a 24*7 noc.  Going up to 8i and relying on the new features
> could, theoretically, expose us.  Our scripts work like a charm and form a
> hugely important part of our backup and recovery strategy ...  Not
> poo-pooing the new features - they'll have their place at many sites,
> particularly those where scripting skills are lacking.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Casey ...
>
>

[Quoted] [Quoted] Just FYI: the standby mechanism can be configured to retry and to consider locations as optional or mandatory.
[Quoted] So you don't necessarily need to check whether sqlnet has copied your logs. [Quoted] Oracle is robust enough to do that and deals with those errors when configured correctly.
I wouldn't like to make an estimate how much developing your scripts would [Quoted] cost, and they will be still (as you describe above) less dependable. If I have to rely on NT's replication features, I would change to standby immediately.

Regards,

Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA Received on Fri May 04 2001 - 12:12:45 CEST