Re: Standby vs. Adv. Replication (Multi-master)

On Friday 25 May 2001 10:52, Jeremiah Wilton wrote:

> Things that can weight the decision on the side of standby:
> - Frequent DDL changes - requires outage for MM rep.
...

This email is a keeper!

>
> Anyone in Seattle want to get together for beers? I'll drag the other
> Amazon DBAs along, if you can stand the sight of a passel of geeks. Reply
> to me, not the list.

Well, if I find myself going to Seattle, I'll call first. ( I'm in Portland )

I saw that Amazon was looking for a DBA. Any chance of a telecommuting DBA?

Not interested in relocating. ( again :)

Jared

>
> --
> Jeremiah Wilton
> http://www.speakeasy.net/~jwilton
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2001, Jack C. Applewhite wrote:
> > We have a Standby database and I love it - especially compared to the
> > complexities of replication!
> >
> > Once you set up the standby database, automate the mechanism for
> > transferring archived redo logs from your production db to the standby,
> > applying them, and deleting them once applied, it requires almost no
> > intervention. About the only time I have to fiddle with the standby is
> > after I add a datafile to a tablespace on the production db.
> >
> > We're on 8.1.6 under Win2k and our production db has almost 8 million
> > CLOB documents, with about 50,000 added each night. The standby keeps up
> > nicely.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > I'm looking for feedback on setting up a
> > high-availability architecture for our production
> > database. In a nutshell, we are a 24-hour shop and I
> > need to be able to keep a secondary database
> > (failover) in sync with the primary in case the
> > primary fails. I have supported advanced replication
> > (asynchronous) in the past but it was a single master
> > relationship not multi-master.
> >
> > I'm leaning towards a standby database setup because
> > my experience with advanced replication is less than
> > favorable if/when transactions get out of sync. Also,
> > one of the tables contains a LONG RAW. This column may
> > go away or may be converted to a CLOB in the very near
> > future but still needs to be kept in consideration
> > when selecting a solution.
> >
> > The platform is Sun (SunOS 5.7) with 8.1.6. The
> > secondary machine and database will most likely be
> > located in another state. The database is small right
> > now (~10Gb) and will continue to grow, but not too
> > fast.
> >
> > What are your opinions?
> > Is there an obvious choice between the two
> > alternatives?
> > Is there another alternative that I should be
> > considering?

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Jared Still
  INET: jkstill_at_cybcon.com

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).