Thanks Kathryn. Did you install the observer in the DR site or at a third site? Do the clients tnsnames need to be reconfigured in case of a failure when connecting to the new primary. On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:45 PM, kathryn axelrod <kat.axe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You wouldn't even need FSFO if you have two hours of allowed downtime :) > > FSFO works ~phenomenally~ well. Right now we have it running on 11.1.0.7 > with no issues...There is around 1minute of downtime if the primary crashes. > > > The only thing I'd throw out there is there are a few 11.1.0.7 DG specific > patches (see note 738538.1) that are recommended...Other than that, I > truly love DG/FSFO; it is amazing. > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Ram K <lambu999@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> We are planning on a new HA/DR solution for a new application that we are >> building. Most of our databases sit on SAN which is synchronosuly >> replicated via SRDF to a DR site. The users for this application want 2 >> hr window within which the DB needs to available if it goes down. The vendor >> recommends clustering, but I am also looking at Dataguard with Fast start >> failover. The physical standby can be at the DR site. The DB will be on >> 11g. >> >> Has anyone used 11g DG with FSF? Any specific issues? Does the DB come up >> quickly without any problem if the primary DB goes down? >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Ram. >> > > -- Thanks, Ram.