Thank
you, Raju. Very helpful
-----Original Message-----
From: raju pa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 4:59 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: SharePlex info1) You would need less network bandwidth with shareplex than you would for transporting archive logs. about 1/3 rd of what you would need for physical stdby.2) CPU burden would be 'little' I guess.3) Shareplex replication allows you to have the table available for read on the target. (even update). If you need this or if it is a great advantage then you can consider shareplex. Else physical stdby would be better.You have to basically consider the huge cost of shareplex and maintenance it needs. CPU usage of source would be a lesser consideration i think.somedays back there was a thread on this started by one Nelson ( I think) so you can maybe look at the archives and that should help you make a decision.
"Gorbounov,Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: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 lotVadim
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
