Re: Oracle Replication vs Robocopy

The goal is supposed to be replication to a standby server. Our software vendor says they will not support using Oracle replication since it corrupts where robocopy doesn't.

John
Thomas Kyte <tkyte_at_us.oracle.com> wrote in message news:dg2hms8g9j8oekkqpbb1n3j0fttpo12len_at_4ax.com...
> A copy of this was sent to "John Mulkerin" <mulkerin_at_flashcom.net>
> (if that email address didn't require changing)
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:17:23 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >I'm running Oracle 8.1.5 on NT4.0 and I'm told I should use NT dir
> >replication and robocopy instead of Oracle Replication Manager. I'm
 told
> >that Oracle replication results in corrupted archive logs while Robocopy
> >doesn't. Seems to be that Robocopy would have been a good solution for
> >Oracle 7 but for Oracle 8? Your opinion would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> >John Mulkerin
> >
>
>
> 1) replication does not result in corrupted archive logs. replication in
 Oracle
> does not even *touch* the logs. You are mistaken in that regard.
>
> 2) robocopy is a file copy utility. You might be able to use it to do
 backups
> but you cannot use it to replicate a database.
>
>
> You are comparing apples to oranges here -- what is your goal, to do
 backups?
> (in which case Oracle replication doesn't come into play but RMAN would)..
 to
> do replication? (in which case robocopy doesn't come into play at all).
> --
> Thomas Kyte (tkyte_at_us.oracle.com) Oracle Service Industries
> Howtos and such: http://osi.oracle.com/~tkyte/index.html
> Oracle Magazine: http://www.oracle.com/oramag
> Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Oracle Corp
>
Received on Sun Jul 09 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT