Re: chunk transplant

"Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@sanderson.net.au> wrote in message news:3a66364d@news.iprimus.com.au... > Thanks for blowing away all my advice! I don't think you missed anything!-/ > <snip> > Above all, I just can never see the point of picking a more complicated > route to a solution than an easier one. If you are going to get basically > duplicate machinery as security, then there are more boring, simpler and > more reliable methods to achieve the fallback. > > Depending on your needs for usage and reliability: > 1) Add hardware and space redundancy to one or both machines > 2) Replicate manually using archive and restore > 3) Setup the Informix replication offerings and setup also your clients to > fallback to the alternative box in the event of a failure. > > Straightforward solutions may not be as exciting, but I can tell you it's > extremely unexciting going without sleep for a night if you have to recover > from a mess. I think you've been in hard-core support from the style of your > messages. Do you really enjoy that kind of excitement? I'd prefer to get my > thrills from a particularly clever select statement or something. Maybe the > plan can be made to work and be considered reliable enough to work for a > while or indefinitely as long as nothing goes wrong, but it's far from the > best solution. I have to agree with Andrew, here, and would highly recommend that the original poster seriously consider using HDR. His situation is exactly what HDR was designed to handle, and it does it well. We use HDR in production, for some extremely business-critical applications. It is very simple and easy to set up and maintain, and it is highly reliable. Yes, there are some restrictions (same OS, same IDS version, same dbms disk layout, etc.) -- but they are not unreasonable restrictions. RTFineM on HDR in the two "Data Replication" chapters in the IDS Sys Admin Guide. HTH, Paul Mosser