Carel-Jan,
Are you sure about the license bit, I think you have to pay for the license
at the remote site, the one you're talking about is when you have an
active-passive cluster (with a single db, that is), not a remote site.
On 9/12/07, Carel-Jan Engel <careljan_at_dbalert.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi Binh,
>
> In my opinion, there are numerous arguments to favour Data Guard over
> disk/san/volume replication. Just to mention a few:
>
> 1. Much less bandwidth reuired: just redo vectors get sent over, not
> a full block/cluster/track for every redo wrtite, data file write, archive
> write, control file write.......
> 2. Configuring a delay in applying archives at the DR site protects
> for 'logical' errors as well. That has saved some asses of customers in the
> past
> 3. Applying the archives at the standby implies a sanity check of
> the archives themselves: a bit fallen over (whatever rare it is) in a disk
> block gets detected.
> 4. Independency of storage architecture: you can afford to have a
> smaller/slower/older SAN at the DR site, as long as you can store all
> database files. You can even afford to have no SAN but JBOD/NAS/DAS at the
> DR site, or just no SAN at all at both ends.
>
> Of course there are some arguments in favour of disk/san/volume
> replication as well:
>
> 1. No Oracle license required at the DR site if you do not do the
> sanity checks more often than at 10 days per year.
> 2. One 'topic of expertise' needed for DR
>
> I can't think of more right now, but maybe my mind is a little biased ;-)
>
> HTH
>
> Best regards,
>
> Carel-Jan Engel
>
> ===
> If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok)
> ===
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 14:52 -0700, Binh Pham wrote:
>
> Any one who has used Veritas Volume Replicator in place of DataGuard fordisaster recovery or failover setups?
> Any issues or problems? Pro's and con's?
> Thanks.
> --http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Thu Sep 13 2007 - 02:46:50 CDT
