Re: Logical Standby Database Question

Followup: Cascaded standby vs non-cascaded standby configuration:

This is just a followup to let the list know that we chose a Cascaded configuration and implemented it in Production Saturday evening. So far, all is well. Ran into one bug that seems to be specific to 10.1.0.3 -- if the Standby Redo Logs in the physical standby have more than one log member, the alert log will report ORA-00322 and ORA-00312. The solution was simply to re-create the Standby Redo Logs with a single member. It will be some weeks before reporting users get migrated over so, at the moment, our new logical standby database is just running along happily hoovering in the archived logs. 10g Data Guard is a wonderful thing.

Regards,
Mark Strickland
Next Online Technologies
Seattle, WA

On 6/2/06, Mark Strickland <strickland.mark_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the responses: Yes, we've considered the impact if the
> physical standby is out of commission for an extended time. The end-users
> can live without their reporting database for a day. Mission-critical
> reporting is going to stay on the primary. I'm looking for a best practice
> if there is one and, if anyone has actually implemented a cascaded
> configuration, have there been any gotchas.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 6/2/06, David Sharples <davidsharples_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > well yes that's what I implied, ab it useless for reporting purposes if
> > you dont have all the data to report on.
> >
> >
> > On 02/06/06, Ghassan Salem <salem.ghassan_at_gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > David,
> > > the log stdby will still be available, but not updated, until the
> > > physical one resumes sending it's redologs.
> > >
> >
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l