RE: SharePlex info

[Gorbounov,Vadim]

Title: Message

Tanel, That's nice trick, thanks a lot. In this case whole redo steam must be passed over the network anyway. 5 MB/sec over WAN. So we'are doing research if we could same some bandwidth.   Vadim -----Original Message----- From: Tanel Poder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 5:14 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: SharePlex info Hi!   Btw, you can physically replicate 50% of your tables with regular standby mechanisms as well. You just take the files belonging to non-needed tablespaces offline and standby recovers only the required part. You just have to arrange your tables to right tablespaces and spend your money elsewhere.   Physical standby and shareplex can operate on archivelogs, thus they can do their jobs without any additional burden to source database CPU, since you generate and archive your logs anyway. You can do archivelog's processing on target or some staging server.   Tanel.   ----- Original Message ----- From: Gorbounov,Vadim To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:49 PM Subject: SharePlex info Hi All,   I'm trying to find some technical details about SharePlex, that is:   - How much network bandwidth I'd expect to replicate from database, generating 1-5 MB/sec redo. Does SharePlex send SQL text over the network or data in some internal (hopefully compressed) format - How much CPU on the source DB server side would it cost  - just a ball park - very little- little - or a lot - Of two options, using 9.2 physical async standby db and clone whole database vs replicate 50% (enough from business requirements) of tables using SharePlex, which one sounds preferrable keeping in mind minimizing CPU burden on the source database.   Any opinion or pointer to any benchmark is highly appreciated.   Thanks a lot Vadim