| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: SRDF vs. Dataguard for a failover site
We use a modified version (asynchronous rather than synchronous, to avoid the performance hit) for production databases, and have periodic tests to make sure that all is well. It does make life somewhat easier for DBAs, since storage and system admins are responsible for failing over the storage. Virtual IPs are in place so that no changes to TNS service names are needed. DBAs need only bring up the instances on the DR servers and hand over to application owners for checkouts. Once testing is over, the failback procedure is the reverse of failover.
Paul Baumgartel
CREDIT SUISSE
Information Technology
DBA & Admin - NY, KIGA 1
One Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
USA
Phone 212.538.1143
paul.baumgartel_at_credit-suisse.com
www.credit-suisse.com
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of ryan_gaffuri_at_comcast.net
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:18 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: SRDF vs. Dataguard for a failover site
Has anyone used SRDF instead of dataguard to manage a failover site? Anyone have any opinions of it?
http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Mar 30 2007 - 11:07:44 CDT
 |
 |