|
Ok, in this case Shareplex might be better, if it
is able to extract only relevant data from logs.
Actually, you could do somewhat similar
yourself using logminer as well. You just extract all needed DML statements on
either production or staging server, compress the output (because file with sql
statements is going to be big but will compress well) and send over network, or
go with Oracle Streams right away. There's going to be an issue with
some special datatypes though IIRC.
I don't know the pricing of shareplex, maybe it'd
be easier going with it..
Tanel.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 12:54
AM
Subject: RE: SharePlex info
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 -----
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
|
