All of the places I've worked its been sysadmins fat-fingering that has hosed or cross mounted disks. Then again, we've never had EMC... HP arrays are enough trouble.
Scott Shafer San Antonio, TX 210.581.6217 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 12:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Multiple recipients of list > ORACLE-L > Subject: Re:RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ? > > Humm, must of missed this one on the rebound. Anyway, here Disk space is > an > admin nightmare. Each time we want to reassign disks from one server to > another > here comes EMC to re-program the Symmetrix array otherwise the SA has the > possibility of assigning 2 servers to the same disk. OOPS I really did > not wnat > to do a newfs on that disk!!!?!??! And at $4000 per disk (72GB) I would > not say > that their cheap. IDE drives have 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... > > HAHAHAHAHA!!! > > Scott Shafer > San Antonio, TX > 210.581.6217 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mogens Norgaard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:25 PM > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L > > Subject: 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, > > > > > > This is personal opinion, but it looks to me like your concerned > > about the > > >database your creating for the client and may not have the total or > > corporate > > >wide view your client has. We're heading down the SAN road not because > > of any > > >specific database requirements but because disk storage has become an > > >administrative nightmare as well as way too expensive. > > > > > >Dick Goulet > > > > > >____________________Reply Separator____________________ > > >Author: "Arun Annamalai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Date: 3/13/2003 12:24 PM > > > > > >Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main > > are... > > >1) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS > then > > you can > > >bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. > Obviously > > you > > >have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front. > > >2) reduce redundancy -A unix userid with home directory attached to a > > paticular > > >NFS drive on NAS/SAN, will able to see all his files when he logs into > > other > > >servers. > > > > > >so far I 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 storage was.. > > > 1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have > > read, SAN > > >is not cost effevtive unless populated > > > by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not > the > > >factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN 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 you share some of the reasons 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, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM > > > Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? > > > > > > > > > list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle > > databases > > >take around > > > 36GB of storage.... i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, > i > > >sugguested to buy an external storage > > > box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the > > factor) > > > > > > TIA > > > rahul > > > > > > > > > > > ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > > ><HTML><HEAD> > > ><META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> > > ><META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR> > > ><STYLE></STYLE> > > ></HEAD> > > ><BODY bgColor=#ffffff> > > ><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several > > good > > >reasons...the two main are...</FONT></DIV> > > ><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1) High availability - When you have your > > database > > >files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when > > the > > >primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) > on > > the > > >front.</FONT></DIV> > > ><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2) reduce redundancy -</FONT><FONT > > face=Arial > > >size=2>A unix userid with home directory attached to a > > paticular > > >NFS drive on NAS/SAN, will able to see all his > files > > when > > >he logs into other servers.</FONT></DIV> > > ><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> > > ><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>so far I heard "Net App" is low cost > > including with > > > > > >Raid 5.</FONT></DIV> > > ><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> > > ><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-Arun.</FONT></DIV> > > ><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sr oracle dba</FONT></DIV> > > ><BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr > > >style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; > > BORDER-LEFT: > > >#000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> > > > <DIV > > > style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: > > black"><B>From:</B> > > > <A [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Rahul</A> > > > </DIV> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Multiple recipients of list > > ORACLE-L</A> > > > </DIV> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 12, 2003 > > 9:38 > > > PM</DIV> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: why SAN ? why not > > external > > > storage ?</DIV> > > > <DIV><BR></DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>my reasons to recommend an external > > storage > > > was..</FONT></DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1) the database size is 36GB, and > > according to > > > many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless > populated > > > </FONT></DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>by a large numbers of drives !!, now for > > the > > > client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a > SAN > > be an > > > overkill ? </FONT></DIV> > > > <DIV> </DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage > > the SAN > > > !! </FONT></DIV> > > > <DIV> </DIV> > > > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr > > > style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; > > BORDER-LEFT: > > >#000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> > > > <DIV > > > style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: > > >black"><B>From:</B> > > > <A [EMAIL PROTECTED] href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Tim > > Gorman</A> > > > </DIV> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Multiple recipients of list > > ORACLE-L</A> > > > </DIV> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 12, > 2003 > > 8:33 > > > PM</DIV> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: why SAN ? why not > > external > > > > > > storage ?</DIV> > > > <DIV><BR></DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Can you share some > > > of the reasons 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.</FONT></DIV> > > > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr > > > style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; > > BORDER-LEFT: > > >#000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> > > > <DIV > > > style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: > > >black"><B>From:</B> > > > <A [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Rahul</A> > > > > > > </DIV> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Multiple recipients of list > > > ORACLE-L</A> </DIV> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 12, > > 2003 1:33 > > > AM</DIV> > > > <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> why SAN ? why not > > external > > > storage ?</DIV> > > > <DIV><BR></DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>list, one of our clietns are going > to > > by SAN, > > > > > > the current oracle databases take around </FONT></DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>36GB of storage.... i dnt understand > > there > > > reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage > > ></FONT></DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>box instead. How can i justify my > > desicion ? > > > (cost of not the factor) </FONT></DIV> > > > <DIV> </DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>TIA</FONT></DIV> > > > <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>rahul</FONT></DIV> > > > <DIV> </DIV> > > > <DIV> </DIV> > > > > > <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > > -- > > Author: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mogens_N=F8rgaard?= > > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > > San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in > > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > > also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > -- > Author: > INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com > San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in > the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L > (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may > also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
