RE: Your views on Quest - Shareplex

I verified this today actually. I had a conference call with Quest regarding SharePlex, and asked specifically about the chained rows. They said there is a "reorganization" step on the target database, so chained rows are not a problem.

Jim

Jim Hawkins
Lead SAPR/3 Oracle Database Administrator MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc.
600 Pearl Drive
St. Louis, MO 633376
9636) 474-7832
jhawkins_at_memc.com (work)
jhawkins_at_primary.net (home)

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MacGregor, Ian A. [mailto:ian_at_SLAC.Stanford.EDU]
> >
> > We are looking into the product as well, but have yet to even
> > toy with the product. There is a "no chained rows"
> > restriction.
>
> I'm not sure what that statement means. Shareplex will replicate a table
> that has chained rows.
>
> > Shareplex does not replicate transactions on
> > sys objects. A table dropped on one side will not be
> > dropped on the other. It apparently will replicate truncates
> > however. It's one thing to read the logs and to find the
> > time when a truncate caused writes to the data dictionary,
> > but quite another to reconstruct the statement.
>
> Statement from a developer of Shareplex:
> <<Interesting statement as this is how we replicate DML. Providing
> functionality for DDL is not at all impossible for us. It is just one of
> the things on the list of enhancements that we plan for SharePlex, the
> priority of which is dependent on the market.>>
>
>
> Let me relate my personal experience working with Shareplex (BEFORE I was
an
> employee with Quest Software). At a previous company we were looking for a
> replication tool at a company that did payroll taxes. There were large
batch
> loads (bank records) every night, but especially at the end of each
quarter
> and at the end of the year. We wanted to ensure that the replication tool
we
> chose would be fast enough to keep up with the large data loads. When we
> tested Oracle Replication and Quest Shareplex, we found that Shareplex was
> significantly faster. I personally argued against it initially for some of
> the reasons posters here have mentioned (e.g. it uses "unsupported" means
to
> accomplish its goal) but eventually we implemented Shareplex and were
> satisfied with the result. There can be some manual effort involved in
> reconciliation of discrepancies but we found that effort to be minor.
> Another factor that influenced our decision is that we were intending to
use
> Shareplex for Oracle in conjunction with Shareplex FS to replicate
datafiles
> created on the HP-UX server.
>
> ------
> Jacques R. Kilchoer
> (949) 754-8816
> Quest Software, Inc.
> 8001 Irvine Center Drive
> Irvine, California 92618
> U.S.A.
> http://www.quest.com
>

-- 
Jim Hawkins
Lead SAPR/3 Oracle Database Administrator
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc.
600 Pearl Drive
St. Louis, MO  633376
9636) 474-7832
jhawkins_at_memc.com (work)
jhawkins_at_primary.net (home)

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Jim Hawkins
  INET: jhawkins_at_primary.net

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).