Re: standby redologs ?!!
From: Yong Huang <yong321_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1317140838.77362.YahooMailClassic_at_web80601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Prem,
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1317140838.77362.YahooMailClassic_at_web80601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Prem,
You seem to forget the case where the standby could have inferior hardware, for example slower storage, fewer CPUs, etc., and in case of active data guard, expensive queries. According to my test http://www.freelists.org/post/oracle-l/Why-extra-standby-redo-log-group,8 it *is* possible that the extra SRL becomes active.
But I think it's only best practice, not requirement.
Yong Huang
- On Tue, 9/27/11, Prem <premj_at_rediffmail.com> wrote:
If the primary (with all the load) is fine with the no. of redo logs - obviously standby (with less load) should be fine too .
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Tue Sep 27 2011 - 11:27:18 CDT