Re: Oracle Replication and Parallel Server

Ajax

There are a number of questions which arose in my mind on reading this, and I can't give you a direct answer as a result. But here's some comments to start out with:

1. If you're already using a messaging product (MQSeries), why even bother looking at using another (which is what replication is under the covers)?
2. In any case, replication and probably MQSeries may not be able to handle a load like 3 million hits per hour. Have you done any volume testing to check this?
3. OPS is primarily an availability tool to my way of thinking. It can give you higher performance as well, but I'd be surprised if the application was designed with OPS in mind. In this case, you may end up with performance degradation if you're hitting OPS from multiple nodes.

HTH. Pete

Ajax wrote:

> Looking for opinions (of which there has never been a shortage) regarding
> the appropriate use of Advanced Replication and Parallel Server in our
> application architecture.
>
> Our database acts as the primary data store for a transactional queue that
> sits "above" it using MQSeries. The transactions must be written to the
> database in a timely manner, but the queue guarantees their delivery (just
> go with it).
>
> My peers have suggested that we employ Parallel Server to allow massive
> throughput and fast transactional capability to insure that the database
> server can handle the 3 million transactions per hour peak volume. I
> contend that parallel server addresses high availability via fail-over, and
> does little to improve the "performance" of such a system. The performance
> in this instance comes from the responsiveness of the queue.
>
> My suggestion is to use advanced replication across two or three
> geographically separate multi-masters that can synchronize at regular
> intervals. This addresses fail-over and disaster-recovery in a way that is
> not currently possible. The logged transactions must be highly available
> (99.9%) for query, but the high-level application must be 100% available.
> Non-stop hardware is less important than redundancy. Transactional
> integrity must be maintained and the system must be able to restore data
> lost as a result of mass media failure.
>
> Can I get a sanity check for this?
>
> Also, it looks like this is turning into a CORBA system in the front and
> middle. Any comments on that with regard to our volume?
>
> Thanks!
> Ajax

--
Regards

Pete

Received on Wed Jul 07 1999 - 11:29:38 CDT