RE: RAC in NAS

Also, I wasn't trying to casually dismiss CFS - simply that your decision should not be based on the idea that one is fundamentally "better" or "faster" than the other - its that they both have their uses and their place, and its more about what's going to work in your environment. I've recommended NAS and CFS and ASM to varying sets of people - I've even recommended polyserve. ;)

Thanks,
Matt

-----Original Message-----

From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Closson Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:20 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: RAC in NAS            

• NAS offers a number of usability enhancements over SAN in RAC environments, notably the fact that NFS is just baked into Linux and removes the need for a CFS
• SAN is generally faster, IO for IO, than NAS.

...how can you say that NFS removes the need for CFS and then come out and say that SAN is faster than NAS. By your own assertion, CFS-on-SAN is therefore faster than NFS-on-NAS so what "removes the need" again?

I know the choice of SAN or NAS is much more than speeds and feeds, but casually dismissing CFS for the sake of NFS is a bit of a stretch I feel.

--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Wed Jul 26 2006 - 14:35:41 CDT