Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Tom Kyte Availability Option Questions / OPS newbie

Re: Tom Kyte Availability Option Questions / OPS newbie

From: Mark Townsend <markbtownsend_at_home.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:45:11 GMT
Message-ID: <B6B71A4D.3A12%markbtownsend@home.com>

Oracle Parallel Server allows you to run your single database across two or more machines in a cluster. Hence if one machine fails, the other machine(s) are still available for use (albeit with twice the workload). I also think that the standby database capability in Oracle8i is a better redundancy solution than replication - replicating a complete database for redundancy is difficult and can introduce significant overhead into your production environment.

> From: Doug C <dcowles_at_i84.net>
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:27:52 -0500
> Subject: Tom Kyte Availability Option Questions / OPS newbie
>
> I was looking at an article by Thomas Kyte about the various availability
> options for Oracle, which is at :
> http://www.oracle.com/oramag/oracle/00-May/o30tom.html
> but i will sumarize the options.
> There are 5
> 1) OPS
> 2) Replication
> 3) Standby Database
> 4) OS- Oriented solutions - such as dual ported RAID devices.
> 5) Architecture
>
> My question revolves exclusively around this comment he makes:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> "In terms of OPS compared with replication:
> If failover and availability are the key issues, using OPS wins out in
> my opinion. If redundancy is the main issue, then using replication is the
> answer (because using OPS is not a redundant solution—you have only one
> database)."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------
> Since we have only one database, and that box could crash, how does this come
> in
> the lead for availability? I can see how one appserver fails over to
> another,
> but if there is something wrong with you db server, seems like availability is
> down the drain.
>
> Comments, insights?
> I would pose this to Tom directly, but he is pretty swamped.
>
> - D
Received on Mon Feb 19 2001 - 20:45:11 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US