Yup. Spineless management is responsible for a lot of bad decisions. I'm fortunate enough to have recently been extracted from that situation.
------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 8:54 AM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > I wish our management would let us do the same. Just like we > wish we could > keep them from installing non-licensed software, keep them > from changing > their machines around so that their virus signatures get > updated, so that > SMS can inventory their systems, or that they would not have > admin rights on > their machines. > > Sorry, but we simply do not get the backing to say no, as > long as they say > "We need it for XXXXX." > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:43 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > We had a huge problem with our DBA's and developers insisting > they might > need 100 to 400 GB's of drive space over the course of a > server lease and > then when it came off lease they actually only had 20 or 30 > GB's of data on > the system. This allows me to only give them what they need > at first and > then scale it up as needed with minimal disruption. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > We make our developers provide stats which would validate > their claims for > space... > > > ============================================================== > ASB - http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=~MoreInfo.TXT > ============================================================== > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Wes Owen > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:51 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > I would have to offer up a differing opinion. I did a pretty > extensive cost > analysis and was able to show a break even point by using SAN. > > Two factors entered in. Better utilization of disk capacity > and the boot > from SAN capability eliminated not only the drives, but also > the cost of the > array controller. The other soft costs of backup and > manageability provided > the ROI. > > We had a huge problem with our DBA's and developers insisting > they might > need 100 to 400 GB's of drive space over the course of a > server lease and > then when it came off lease they actually only had 20 or 30 > GB's of data on > the system. This allows me to only give them what they need > at first and > then scale it up as needed with minimal disruption. > > -----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. > > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 9/30/2002 > > > ------ > 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 PROTECTED]
