on 3/3/09 11:11 AM, Adam Levin said: > Of course, good luck > convincing Oracle and Exchange people that NFS is OK (note that at > $WORK-2, we ran our whole Internet-based business on Oracle via NFS to > NetApp -- it was wonderful :) ).
Our previous Storage Guy had previously worked at Oracle, where they did a lot of hosted solutions, in the massively huge datacenter they have here in Austin. They didn't use anything *but* NetApp filers. He personally only managed a few dozen filers in his group, but he worked closely with the guy in another group who managed literally hundreds of the things. In our group at UT Austin, the only place we do Oracle is on NetApp NFS, and our Oracle DBAs are violently opposed to any other solution. They've found that when they put their databases on NetApp filers, they simply no longer have to worry about managing the storage -- just make sure they've got enough disk space for the various different types of volumes they need (with appropriate spindle speeds and counts), and the rest just manages itself. It literally is a no-brainer to them. Overall, I'd say that Oracle is the poster child for NetApp filers. -- Brad Knowles <[email protected]> If you like Jazz/R&B guitar, check out LinkedIn Profile: my friend bigsbytracks on YouTube at <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> http://preview.tinyurl.com/bigsbytracks _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
