Re: Back to the future

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 05:03:12 +0000 (UTC), "Saikat Chakraborty" <saikatchak_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>Dear Dino,
>I feel having a standby database is a better solution for that. I used
>to maintain a 1TB database which have a standby database. Exporting the
>database
>was out of question as the window was very small. The log switches
>occour
>by half an hour frequency. There are a few instances when users dropped
>tables and came to me. In most cases my activity was to open the standby
>database readonly, export the needed table and import it back to
>production.
>Takes less pain. But the resources...
>
>Thanks
>Saikat
>

You reminds me of another question in mind.

What, among the following three, is the best solution in terms of fault-tolerance and 24x7 availablity:

1.one primary database + one stand-by database
2.two mutually replicated databases
3.paralle servers

If remote backup is also taken into account, I assume the third one is not applicable, then again what's the best? A while ago when I asked about Oracle's remote backup strategy of its own data centers, one mentioned 'veritas', what exactly is that?

I confess that I've only studied the stand-by one, and 'heard of' of the other two. I just want to know their difference.

IMHO, a stand-by or read-only database is good; but if two databases can be mutually replicated or synchronized (as does Lotus Notes), wouldn't it be better? Thanks for your comments.

Dino Received on Thu Sep 06 2001 - 07:49:10 CDT