On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Andrew W. Gibbs <awgibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Going with your first option, a master->slave replication, has the
added benefit that you build the expertise for doing Continuous Point
In Time Recovery, and after you do this storage system migration you
can use that knowledge to put in a place a permanent standby server.
Yes, it is a bit of work, but you'd kill two birds with one stone, and
these are worthwhile birds. If you've got a busy server, and you want
to do regular back-ups, and you don't have a much more
expensive/sophisticated solution at your behest (or you want to
support load balancing of reads in the future), this is probably
something you want to do anyway.
Thanks Andrew, actually I have a streaming slave running for backups at the moment. It's just not as powerful as the primary. It would probably actually be an option to upgrade it and do the failover as well.
