Originally posted by kgb Hi,
I just have a two options: Standby server or Multimaster replication system.
What is preferable?
I don't see any compatibility in this two options! You are comparing apples and bannanas. In multimaster replication both databases are active, transactions are executed on both sites and are replicated to the other site.
On the other hand, in standby configuration only one database is active, the other one is in constant recovery mode, hence can't be used at all. You can temporaryly open the standby database in read only mode, but while being able to read from database in this mode the changes from the other database are not applied to it while in read-only open mode.
Again, the functionality and the purpose of this two concepts are totaly different and can't be compared in terms "one or the other" for any situaton.
Jurij Modic ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
24 hours in a day .... 24 beer in a case .... coincidence?
well the only similar thing between replication (let's talk about standard not advanced) and standby database is that they can both be used for disaster recovery, I would say standby is a cheap way of replication (but really cheap huh)
Originally posted by nabaig Can a standby server work over remote sites?
I need to have a copy of all regional databases updated continuously at HQ as separate DB's. What is the best solution?
You can have Standby over remote server. First of all tell us whats the purpose of this task ? Just for High availability or You need to access those databases simaultaneously ? I mean you have any plans of using the HQ databases for user access ?
As Jmodic said Just for High availability means you can use Standby. If you want use your regional databases copied over to HQ and use 'em for user activity you are left with REPLICATION is the only option and you don't have the second option standby, as you know that standby can only be READONLY mode while primary is in use.
I think everyone make it very clear. unless you can verify the purpose, these 2 options are incompatable.
Last week, I opened a thread standby vs. multi-master replication. unfortunately, only one response. since so many response in this thread. I want open my question in here if no one disagree:
my situation is: I have been asked to create two read-only sites that need to reflect all transactions "instantly" when master site been updated. for read-only I can use snapshot with a time-based refresh interval. for instantly update, I need a transaction based update which mutli-master support this feature. the issue is using very short interval (my test is 5 sec) will create hugh archive log files on master site. (my test data is no any activity, 3Gb per day). so what's the suggestion or option?
This is neither for high availability nor HQ user activity, this is for auditing purposes. By auditing I done mean database auditing but functional auditing.
Customer is Saudi Arabia's only telecom company and they have servers all across the kingdom. What we are tring to do here is have all work order information at regions(local site)
available at HQ on a read only basis and for work auditing.
I know that you folks will ask mw why doesn't HQ query the region databases via links. That is not an option unfortunately.
This telecom needs all region DB's also at HQ on a real time basis.