Re: Advise for a pseudo-data warehouse?

Hi!

> It seems like it would offer a lot of advantages. We are already
> generating redo logs on the production machine, so I don't think there
> would be much overhead added to the production machine. Would it?

With physical standby, there shouldn't be much overhead on primary, since you'll be copying the archives away anyway. Only thing that comes into my mind, is that you shouldn't user NOLOGGING operations on primary anymore. (you might want to alter database/tablespace force logging if you have 9i).

> One concern I have though, is the robustness of the net8 transfer of
> the redo logs from the production machine to the standby machine? The
> redo logs would go over a WAN, and thus might be susceptible to blips
> in the connection. Is the transferring of the redo logs over net8
> robust enough to recover from this, or would the transfer just fail
> and not restart?

I in 9.2 DataGuard is able to manage archive gaps automatically. It isn't hard to manage with simple scripts either.

> Also, an additional requirement, is for data from another database
> (Microsoft SQL Server) to be available in this standby database. Is
> this possible? It seems that when a database is set up as a standby
> machine, it is basically a slave to the main database, and no
> operations can be performed on it. Is that the case? Maybe import the
> SQL Server data into a different tablespace?

Hm, you might want to create database link using heterogenous services (ODBC) to SQL Server on primary, that way they appear on standby as well and you should be able to select from them even in read only database. That way you don't even have to make any copy of your SQL Server data, you can query directly from original source if you want.

Tanel. Received on Tue Aug 05 2003 - 08:45:18 CDT