You can take what ever Roger says in this thread and add my complete agreement with his opinions and conclusions.
Quack. -----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:17 PM To: NT 2000 Discussions Subject: RE: Basic SAN question That's interesting. Almost everyone else I know that's run the numbers has shown a considerably higher cost per mb for SAN over DAS, and have had to use the "soft" cost justifications to get them back in line. Granted, you were buying 5-20 times the required storage per machine, we usually shoot for 2-3 times. For grins, what's the total capacity of your SAN, and what's the current utilization at? ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:00 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > Disagree. We are moving all of our servers to the SAN, > including booting > the OS from the SAN. We were able to show a break even > scenario in hard > costs, and then the "soft cost" were able to push things over the top. > > Largely because of our purchasing habits, I admit. We would > buy servers > with 100 to 400 GB's of drive space because they (developers > and DBA's, not > me!) might need it within the three year lease cycle. Then > when it came off > lease they may have used 15 or 20 GB's. Also, booting from > SAN I lose the > array card along with all the hard drives. > > Again just one man's opinion. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:15 AM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > IMO, the *right* answer is to not buy a SAN for generalized > storage. At the > current price-per-mb rates of SAN solutions vs. Direct Attached > Storage(DAS), I can waste a LOT of locally attached storage > before I break > even moving to a SAN. > > Don't get me wrong - SAN's have their place. I just don't think most > companies need them. And don't even get me started on NAS boxes, > either. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:27 AM > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > Thanks for the warning. > > > > I do plan on minimizing the number of LUNs, but my boss asked the > > question and I wanted to be sure to have the /right/ answer instead > > of the /right-now/ answer. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:51 AM > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > Most vendors will allow you to slice and dice a SAN array into as > > > many LUNs of whatever size you want. Its absolutely the wrong > > > thing to do, but it certainly can be done. > > > > > > Any time a phisical platter is partitioned, you're going to take a > > > performance hit - simply put, the heads can't be in two places at > > > once, so if two systems are trying to access data which is > > > physically on the same platter, but logically on different LUNs, > > > there is head contention, and one of the two must wait for the > > > other to finish "using" the heads, and then pay the additional > > > price of a head seek across the platter to its assigned set of > > > cylinders. > > > > > > In the case of your single 500GB RAID5 set in your SAN being split > > > into 300/100/50/50, you have in reality created 4 partitions on > > > each spindle, with 60%/20%/10%/10% split on each spindle. With a > > > large number of platters, and larger stripe sizes, its > > > theoretically possible to reduce the chances of contention within > > > the SAN, but realistically speaking, chances are there is going to > > > be some contention, and therefore some performance hits associated > > > with managing your disks this way. > > > > > > Its one of the lies^H^H^H^H omissions commonly done in the sales > > > pitches of the big storage vendors. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:07 PM > > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > > Subject: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have a RAID-5 array of (let's say) 500GB, can you create > > > > LUNs of an arbitrary size to be presented to the > servers? E.g, a > > > > 300GB, a 100GB, and > > > > two 50GB? Or is there a convention that all LUNs have to be > > > > a uniform > > > > size? > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________ > > > > Chris Levis > > > > Applied Geographics, Inc. > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > ------ > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are > confidential and are intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are > NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for > delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised > that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, > dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this > e-mail is strictly prohibited. > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > ------ You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
