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

>>>Can I have two filesystems with each one database on two
storage boxes, one at each site, and have one primary and one standby at each site? (A way to overcome the license penalties of DG: both severs are in use, the standby work isn't consuming that much resources in most cases). I.e can two boxes replicate to each other (differents FS's of course)? Or is it a replication stream that goes on a per storage box basis?         

        ...just a different angle... logical corruptions can be handled with the
snapshots and the storage is replicating to the DR site...so, yes, you could have
a hundred databases in a few huge filesystems all nicely replicated at the
storage level, but if you want to take database number 42 at the primary site and go back in time, you have hundreds or thousands (if desired) filesystem snapshots to choose from... of course the real cats-meow is writeable snapshots (AKA clones) so that you could take any of the snapshots
at the primary site, mount it and start an instance off it and do what you wish
...but, uh...for the stack I work on that is a bit too far out in the future.

Also, with storage replication, it is more than conceivable to have a turtiary
copy of the data at the standby site...break that off, mount import it into
the cluster, mount it and go to work on it ...

Just thoughts, but from a more general approach than the pure-Oracle play...
do devils here, just thoughts ...

As an aside, you can imagine how important thousands of snapshots a day are for
people's home directories :-) What, you say? You need a copy of that power-point slide from 2 hours 16 minutes and 42 seconds ago? :)

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