Mogens wrote
There are many things I don't get in this life.
I doubt it very much...
One of them is the
statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too
expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?!
Other than ignorance I see no way in which storage admin can be a
heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5.
-Arun.
Sr oracle dba
- Original Message -
From: Rahul
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
my reasons to recommend an external
: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
There are many things I don't get in this life. One of them is the
statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too
expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?!
Mogens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rahul
gotten real cheap, when will SCSI
follow
suit??
Dick Goulet
Reply Separator
Subject:RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 3/14/2003 10:03 AM
Oh, Gods forbid the sysadmins would have to gulp do their job
:
Rahul
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38
PM
Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external
storage ?
my reasons to recommend an external storage
was..
1) the database size is 36GB, and according to
many documents i have read, SAN i
Net App is low cost including with Raid 5.
-Arun.
Sr oracle dba
- Original Message -
From: Rahul
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
my reasons to recommend an external storage was..
1
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:25 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
There are many things I don't get in this life. One of them is the
statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too
expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?!
recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
my reasons to recommend an external storage was..
1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN
is not cost effevtive unless populated
Can youshare some ofthereasons
related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage(DAS) instead
of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than
DAS.
- Original Message -
From:
Rahul
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday,
Tim - Can you elaborate on those reasons? Our administrators feel DAS is
usually much cheaper, and they are not convinced the SAN performance is
there.
Dennis Williams
DBA, 40%OCP, 100% DBA
Lifetouch, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:34 AM
Dick ... did you have problems with Netapps on your archivelogs or
just the datafiles or both??
We are considering using it for alternative archivelog solution...
Last place we were at we did have a few issue with datafiles but it
got worked out and worked fine after that.
Brian
Brian
I'm not Dick, but will respond anyway. We use a Netapp for our test
system and it works fine for that. My experience has been that it is quite
dependent on your network configuration (dedicated 100baseT as minimum), and
multiple simultaneous reads and writes seems to bog it down. I would
Dick Goulet gave an excellent response to the list earlier -- I'd second him
on each point he made.
There is no doubt that DAS is cheaper on the original purchase, because
you're only buying the disk. Obviously, a SAN has a few more bits of iron
and wire. But have those administrators toted up
Bingo! One of the reasons my team lead wants a SAN in here is to limit the
vast amounts of wasted storage (wasted storage = wasted $$$)we have on our
individual disparate systems. That savings must be weighed against the
downsides of a SAN, such as the possibility of I/O contention and the
Dick ... did you have problems with Netapps on your archivelogs or
just the datafiles or both??
We are considering using it for alternative archivelog solution...
Last place we were at we did have a few issue with datafiles but it
got worked out and worked fine after that.
Brian
Bingo! One of the reasons my team lead wants a SAN in here is to limit the
vast amounts of wasted storage (wasted storage = wasted $$$)we have on our
individual disparate systems. That savings must be weighed against the
downsides of a SAN, such as the possibility of I/O contention and the
be an overkill
?
2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !!
- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33
PM
Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external
storage ?
Can youshare some
17 matches
Mail list logo
