Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

From: Deshpande, Kirti <kirti.deshpande_at_verizon.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:48:42 -0800
Message-ID: <F001.00569D67.20030313174842@fatcity.com>


Disks are cheap until one asks for them ;)

-----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?!

Mogens

dgoulet_at_vicr.com 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" <oracle_at_shakaboom.com>
>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
>
>

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: Deshpande, Kirti
  INET: kirti.deshpande_at_verizon.com

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: 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 Thu Mar 13 2003 - 19:48:42 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US