Re: Data Guard question.

Mark, Ron,
I strongly disrecommend using the ..._FILE_NAME_CONVERT parameters. Not for technical reasons, but from the point of view of robustness of managing your systems.

Immediately after a failover you're in a stressfull situation. Keeping in mind that the structure you're working on is different makes the situation even more error-prone.

So, try to keep the structures as symmetric as possible. Even when you have only one big disk available, create a directory tree that resembles the tree on the primary, albeit with symbolic links.

Further, you might take a look in my post on this list of last May 17th on the subject 'backup archive logs'. I elaborated a bit on the game-plan for a HA setup.

Best regards, Carel-Jan Engel

On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 21:47, Mark Bole wrote:

> Ron Rogers wrote:
>
> > List,
> > I have been looking into using Data Guard as a method of providing HA is =
> > the company decides it is an option they want to invest in.
> > The question that I have are.
> > 1. Using a physical database as the Data Guard, does the second server =
> > have to have the exact same physical equipment for the disks or does it =
> > just have to be the same directory structure? [...]
>
> Doesn't even require that, since a physical standby can be on the same
> machine as the primary if desired.
>
> Check the Data Guard manual for the section "Standby Database Directory
> Structure Considerations" and the DB_FILE_NAME_CONVERT and
> LOG_FILE_NAME_CONVERT parameters.

Best regards,

Carel-Jan Engel

===
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok) ===

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