Shareplex reads the log files.... so if you can't get the log files over the existing line, Shareplex can't read them.
have you considered using an NFS mounted disk for your archive log directory? or a process that copies the archived logs to the nfs mounted disk on the primary and a another process that copies them off the nfs mounted disk on the secondary? I had to do something like that when I worked with Sybase, back in the 4.7 days, so that I could "backup" the log files realtime. --- Yechiel Adar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Tim and Rachel > > There is band width problem. The line is 256K (we are checking > upgrade to > 512k). > The database, during peek time produce 10MB of logs every 2-3 > minutes. > On this line it will take 7-8 minutes to pass 10MB if the line was > dedicate > and it is not dedicated. > > Upgrading the line to more then 512K need E1 at least and it is > expansive. > > Since replication will need less band width we are checking it. > > To return to my original question: > Quest Shareplex - > Any success stories? > Why use this and not replication? > Ant performance tests between Shareplex and Oracle replication? > > Yechiel Adar > Mehish > ----- Original Message ----- > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:33 AM > (online redo logs) > > > > and if you need the remote site to support users, you could use the > > logical standby feature of 9iR2, which generates SQL statements to > be > > applied and allows the database to be open and active. > > > > --- Tim Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > why wouldn't you consider simply using the standby database > feature? > > > > > > do you need the remote site to support users also? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 11:43 AM > > > (online redo logs) > > > > > > > > > > Hello All > > > > > > > > I just had a meeting today about replication. > > > > The situations is: One master db that is currently replicated > > > > (master to master synchronous replication) to a second DB. > > > > Both machines are NT and the is a direct cable connection > > > > between the network cards on both machines. > > > > > > > > However, this solves the problem of machine failure but does > not > > > cover > > > > the full disaster recovery as both machines are in the same > room. > > > > In case of fire both machines will be destroyed. > > > > > > > > We are thinking about adding asynchronous replication to > replicate > > > the > > > > changes > > > > across wan to a remote site. The problem is that this will load > the > > > > production system and the network link (wan is expensive), as > the > > > system > > > > generates during peek time 10MB of archive logs every 2-3 > minutes. > > > > > > > > I saw that some of you are using Quest Shareplex. > > > > Can you share your reasons, success stories etc? > > > > Benchmarks results will be very welcome. > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > Yechiel Adar > > > > Mehish > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:32 PM > > > > (online redo logs) > > > > > > > > > > > > NB_ RESENDING in plain text - sorry, Outlook keeps seinding in > html > > > no > > > > matter what default i set! > > > > Hi lists, > > > > > > > > I am using Quest Shareplex product for Oracle to Oracle one > way > > > > replication. I have two systems (source and target) and two > > > environments > > > > (dev, demo). On system one, the environments are setup as > schemas > > > within > > > > one oracle instance (therefore each schema will be a SOURCE in > the > > > > replication). My other system has each environment set up a > > > separate > > > Orace > > > > Instances (therefore each instance will become a TARGET in the > > > replication). > > > > > > > > I am trying to configure 2 separate replication streams (ie > so > > > that > > > each > > > > replication process is SEPARATE from the other - one for DEV > and > > > one for > > > > DEMO). I will accomplish this by setting up Shareplex to use > > > mulitple > > > > processes. > > > > > > > > HOWEVER, Quest technical support has told me that this will > > > cause > > > > contention. However, I dont see why is would from an os/oracle > > > point of > > > > view. Basically Shareplex has a process which reads the online > > > redo > > > > logs......... tech support is suggesting that is there a two > > > processes > > > > trying to access the same block in the logs that contention can > > > occur. > > > This > > > > does not make sense to me. Below is the blurb from techincal > > > support when > > > I > > > > questioned their initial repsonse: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > ************************************************* > > > > The reason you might run into a contention is because multiple > > > captue > > > > processes may be reading the same data block in the redo log. > > > Since there > > > > is only one process that can access a single block, the other > > > process may > > > > have to wait. > > > > Contention is a possibilty, and you will need to run some bench > > > marks to > > > > find out how much, if any, contention you will have. > > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > ************************************************* > > > > > > > > I would find it HARD to believe that only ONE process can read > a > > > block at > > > a > > > > time. If this were true, then OLTP system would FAIL > miserably! > > > > > > > > Anyone have any ideas/comments regarding the OS and Oracle > > > interaction > > > .... > > > > I mean are not the logs at this pointa UNIX file? and can't > > > multiple > > > > processes read a single unix file without bringing the whole > system > > > to its > > > > knees? > > > > Also, I am NOT knocking the techincal support, but I believe > that > > > the > > > > opinion was formulated on an incorrect assumption on the > operating > > > system > > > > and Oracle. > > > > Thoughts/comments? > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > > > Hannah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com > > > > -- > > > > Author: > > > > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) > 538-5051 > > > > San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / > Mailing > > > Lists > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Rachel Carmichael INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
