RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?

We have about 20 or so at the moment (some will go away soon) and I'd say that the main overhead is testing failover. When the standby runs as a standby you don't really need to do anything with it other than run a monitoring script to notify you if logs get out of sync.

But I'll admit that the thought of swinging 80 databases from production site to standby site and then back again is a little daunting, depending on how many DBAs you have to do the work.

Thanks,
Jay Miller
Sr. Oracle DBA
x68355  

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Closson Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:36 PM To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Some Dataguard is good, lots more must be better?

 >>>alternative DR solutions. For people that do care about near 

...the thread I started was about the practicality of using DG for a lot of databases. Maybe there is nobody on list that has more than, say, 10 database that need DR, but does the comment "(reasonably) easy to manage" hold fast if we are talking about providing DR for, say, 10 or 20 databases?

One of our accounts has over 80 databases that need DR and I must say that in my mind chewing on crushed glass would bring more pleasure than trying to deal with 80 primary/standby DG relationships... It just seems to me that at some number of databases, the only humanly possible way to get DR would be at the storage level... thoughts ?

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


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