Re: options for standby database
From: David Fitzjarrell <oratune_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1402428687.44579.YahooMailNeo_at_web124703.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Deprecating a functionality that's replaced by a greater functionality is fine, but I do agree that for those using Streams that now need to switch to Golden Gate some sort of reduced licensing cost should be implemented.� Of course, that's MY opinion. � David Fitzjarrell Principal author, "Oracle Exadata Survival Guide" On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:07 PM, Rich Jesse <rjoralist3_at_society.servebeer.com> wrote: David replies: > Why are you surprised?� I've seen this coming for a while now.� Besides, if > Golden Gate surpasses Streams in functionality (which, I believe, it does) > it makes sense to deprecate functionality that's merely a subset of another > product. Surprised?� No.� But from the customer's perspective, we now have to pay (a LOT) extra for functionality that was removed.� It should be comp'ed for existing licensing. The inability to do on-the-fly compression for exports (expdp vs exp) without the Advanced Compression license is one that constantly bites my backside. My $.02 ($.01 after paying my extra Oracle licensing), Rich -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1402428687.44579.YahooMailNeo_at_web124703.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Deprecating a functionality that's replaced by a greater functionality is fine, but I do agree that for those using Streams that now need to switch to Golden Gate some sort of reduced licensing cost should be implemented.� Of course, that's MY opinion. � David Fitzjarrell Principal author, "Oracle Exadata Survival Guide" On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:07 PM, Rich Jesse <rjoralist3_at_society.servebeer.com> wrote: David replies: > Why are you surprised?� I've seen this coming for a while now.� Besides, if > Golden Gate surpasses Streams in functionality (which, I believe, it does) > it makes sense to deprecate functionality that's merely a subset of another > product. Surprised?� No.� But from the customer's perspective, we now have to pay (a LOT) extra for functionality that was removed.� It should be comp'ed for existing licensing. The inability to do on-the-fly compression for exports (expdp vs exp) without the Advanced Compression license is one that constantly bites my backside. My $.02 ($.01 after paying my extra Oracle licensing), Rich -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Jun 10 2014 - 21:31:27 CEST