Re: Disaster recovery

From: Stan <stan0074_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 05:10:35 GMT
Message-ID: <3E41EE27.1070606@yahoo.com>

Mark,

couple of reasons for non-managed mode is that,

we have control over the time lag in applying archive log to remote standby's thereby minimizing the chances of data corruption being pushed to standby. however, we still have archive logs pushed to remote site, its only that, apply them every 6hrs intervals.
besides, we have few databases on std. edition and couple of them in ent. editions. so, managed recovery mode is not a option for databases on std. edition.

we are yet to upgrade to 9iR2, where dataguard becomes more appropriate than a standby.

Stan

Mark Townsend wrote:
> in article 3E41D432.40601_at_yahoo.com, Stan at stan0074_at_yahoo.com wrote on
> 2/5/03 7:19 PM:
>
>

>>i'm kind of leaning towards having a remote standby with manual recovery
>>mode and have archive logs ship to remote site via rsync/secure, as and
>>when it generates (every half hour) and apply archive logs to standby
>>once in 6hrs via scripts.

>
>
> Not sure why you would want to manually configure this, when it's just a
> Physical Standby with delayed apply. Any reason you don't want to use
> Dataguard ?
>
Received on Wed Feb 05 2003 - 23:10:35 CST