| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Alternatives to Directly Attached Disk - NAS or SAN ?
John , would you mind telling which NAS and SAN solutions have you looked
at or been pointed to by the list,
and which approach / vendor / product is the leader so far ?
DBAndrey
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Mon, May 13, 2002 6:12 PM
To: LazyDBA.com Discussion
Thanks,
The comment about SAN problems are consistent with what I've also heard - SAN solutions tend to be complex, difficult to manage and are easy to screw up in a right royal fashion. NAS filers tend not to work as fast for DBMS use (I've had two replies saying their NAS solution was replaced by a SAN for performance), but they're very easy to run - very low maintenance.
I've also received details of a new protocol Direct Access File System (DAFS) which produces performance on NAS similar to directly attached disk mounted as a raw device. If this is true (and there's very little independent review evidence available), then even the performance becomes a non-issue.
Thanks to all those who've commented - if anyone else has any experience please chip in.
John R.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 13 May 2002 16:12
To: LazyDBA.com Discussion
Hmmmm....well, sounds like first thing to consider, is avoiding windows as the OS that manages and controls it....
:-)
Kelly
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:04:24AM -0700, after pounding the keys randomly,
MacGregor, Ian A. came up with....
> I don't much about using SAN with Oracle. However be careful how you
configure it. We had "experts" set up SAN for our Windows NT Central File
system. A few months later, the system was brought down for a fairly minor
problem. When restarted, it up it initiated chkdsk, a process which took
over three days to complete! Users, unable to get to their files, were less
than impressed.
>
> Ian MacGregor
> Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
> ian_at_slac.stanford.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Ryan [mailto:john.ryan_at_denovopharma.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:24 AM
> To: LazyDBA.com Discussion
> Subject: Alternatives to Directly Attached Disk - NAS or SAN ?
>
>
> DBAs,
>
> I'm in the lucky(?) position of deciding the storage strategy for a mid
> sized company (100 staff and growing), who're generating large data
volumes.
> Non-Oracle volumes have reached nearly 500Gb in 12 months, and a major
> Oracle based system has just come "on tap" and expected to generate 1Tb in
> 12 months, then perhaps the same again every year - or frighteningly even
> more!!!
>
> Directly Attached Disk is not a sensible way forward, so we're looking at
> Network Attached Storage (NAS) and Storage Area Network (SAN) solutions.
In
> short I'm finding the following:-
>
> o Both give high reliability and availability with RAID and dual redundant
> almost anything
> o Both can share space between a File Serving and Unix (ie. database)
> applications although the NAS shares files not just space
> o Both provide excellent management tools including "Snapshots" and fast
> restore
>
> But SANs are supposedly faster than NAS solutions for raw I/O and
therefore
> better for database applications.
>
> Has anyone any direct experience with SAN or NAS solutions?
>
> I'm also talking to vendors, but I wondered if there was any general
> consensus in the "real" world.
>
>
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Andrey Bronfin INET: andreyb_at_elrontelesoft.com Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists -------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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).Received on Tue May 14 2002 - 04:53:19 CDT
 |
 |