RE: Database Storage

From: Goulet, Dick <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:10:41 -0500
Message-ID: <>

        ell, we mainly use the leaders of storage systems, namely EMC, Sun, and HP. We also always use SAN vs. NAS just because direct attach has less network volatility, even if your using a dedicated network card.

        One question I would have for the BlueArc folks is why they recommended NAS and how hard would it be to switch to SAN connections, especially fiber. I'd also recommend to them that they bear the brunt of the costs, at least to save their reputation that is.

        Looking for a forklift replacement is going to be very costly because of the expense to acquire the solution, get it installed, move the data, and validate that all went well. Then your into performance testing and troubleshooting with a completely new tool set which could make things worse over the short term at a minimum. No better to stay with the installed solution, but fix the problem which IMHO is the NAS configuration. Also one might look at the configuration. You could have disks that are servicing more than one task. My experience says that if a part of a disk is assigned to database activity, then the remaining portions thereof do not get mixed into other applications, like NFS mounts, Wintel shares, etc..... You might also look at the sys admins. Had a database crash once because the sysadmins did not share information on a timely basis. Consequently a hyper volume in an EMC Symmetric got assigned to two mount points at the same time. HUMM, now where did that database data file go???

Dick Goulet / Capgemini
North America P&C / East Business Unit
Senior Oracle DBA / Hosting
Office: 508.573.1978 / Mobile: 508.742.5795 / Fax: 508.229.2019 / Email: 45 Bartlett St. / Marlborough, MA 01752

Together: the Collaborative Business Experience

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

[] On Behalf Of Mir M. Mirhashimali Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:06 PM
Subject: Database Storage

Dear Oracle-L,

I have been tasked to find what storage solutions is best for our databases. Our current storage solution had been performing very badly not in terms of through put but in terms off availability. We have both Oracle and SQL Server(2000 and 2005). I am interested in knowing what other people are using and what strategy they are following to make it high-availability. RAC is not an option for us. right now we have redundant servers and NFS mounts to our storage system. and similar setup for SQL Server. with a active-passive cluster connected to storage.



Mir M. Mirhashimali
Oracle Systems Manager
Database Architecture, Enterprise Applications Rice University
(713) 348 6365


This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.

-- Received on Thu Jan 17 2008 - 15:10:41 CST

Original text of this message