| Title: | Oracle |
| Notice: | For product status see topics: UNIX 1008, OpenVMS 1009, NT 1010 |
| Moderator: | EPS::VANDENHEUVEL |
| Created: | Fri Aug 10 1990 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1574 |
| Total number of notes: | 4428 |
Hi, I've got a customer who wanted to implement Replication on an ASE environment. My initial position is these are mutually exclusive solution sets. Either you do replication or you do ASE. Background My customer has an ASE with one of the servers replicating data to a remote site. He also wanted to do the same replication to the other idle 8400 on the ASE domain, that is, treat the idle 8400 as though it is also remote. Problems Two sets of storage. One for ech 8400. Oracle created a script mounting each storage on each 8400 using a common mount point. (Hold it til I finish). Replication happens from the active server to the idle. Data is replicated from active server's storage to the idle server's storage. All is fine until you simulate a failover scenario. Oracle insists that its the way they have to go. Of course, we insist that it's not the way to go ASEs. Is there a better, more experienced way of going about this customer goal (having multiple copies of data on multiple storage)? This is a serious issue for this telco who got half a dozen 8400 on multiple sites. /joeljosol [Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1522.1 | I guess they need to decide | ALFAM7::GOSEJACOB | Mon Mar 03 1997 07:55 | 14 | |
re .0
Just my personal view of the world: I guess its one way or the other.
If they want to use Oracle replication to keep 2 copies of the same
data on 2 seperate machines fine. But in this case installing ASE on
these 2 machines will not add any extra value; e.g. there is not much
point in storing the data on shared disks.
If they want to use ASE they should configure LSM mirroring to keep
redundant copies of the data. Now in this scenario the failover will be
supervised by ASE not Oracle; probably the reason why the Oracle guys
don't like the idea.
Martin
| |||||
| 1522.2 | Different behavior of same ASE version... | MANM01::JOELJOSOL | Wed Mar 05 1997 19:34 | 16 | |
Turns out that what the customer calls "replication" is simply
moving the archive log over to the idle 8400. The problem is
that the failover tries to mount on the idle 8400's mount point
which is currently used by the idle 8400 causing the failover
to fail.
I have simulated this back in the office with DUNIX V3.2G and
ASEV1.3 using 1000A and 4100. When failing over to the 1000A,
ASE tries to mount on the 4100's mount point and fails resulting
with the ASE service unassigned. But, failing from 1000A to
4100 succeeds because after failing, ASE dismounts the mount
point and retries where it succeeds the second time.
Now, that I don't understand.
/joeljosol
| |||||