Re: To San or not to San

From: William Muriithi <william.muriithi_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 19:13:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CAE9rU+4qk0aRfauARJWJxS8pEDWQ0yyS7BZJnFJhfnUNVdwEzw_at_mail.gmail.com>

> first you should calculate your IO requirements for the database ...
> second, everything is a question of budget i.e. money ;-)
> if your budget is sufficient to buy a SAN and no one raise a questions
> about it, well do it ... you will get a nice toy for your system ;-)
>

Rarely a good idea in my humble opinion. Unless you don't like your employer, better to just buy what does the job nicely and nothing more. That include factoring the growth during the hardware lifespan. Better to use the extra money to buy lab equipment or better yet, get it as bonus. Using the money for lab offer ability to redeploy the resource if necessary.

Anyway, I know you were just making a joke.

As for the original question, it sounds like he could do without SAN in my opinion

William
> otherwise, check if you can afford one DAS or in worst case single server
> with internal drives sufficient for supporting your IO needs ... if the
> iPhone can do the work, why not? ;-)
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Storey, Robert (DCSO) <
> RStorey_at_dcso.nashville.org> wrote:
>
> > Hopefully, I got the right address this time.
> > Okay, generic storage question.
> >
> > *************************************
> >
> > When I setup my current production box, we bought a beefy box with
> > internal storage (back in 2008). Box is running fine. I had the
systems
> > folks set it up with S.A.M.E in mind. 6 internal drives, mirrored and
> > striped to form a huge data pool (Windows based servers/etc). Built my
> > database and away we went.
> >
> > Small database, less than about 150Gig of data (and that's 12 years of
> > stuff!)
> >
> > 3 years ago the move started to update our infrastructure. We move
kinda
> > slow, being local government. Big thing now was to buy a small SAN and
> > migrate the email, file/print, etc to it, along with the Oracle world.
 New
> > servers bought for my production world (without internals).
> >
> > Following the same principle, I told the systems guy that I wanted Raid
10
> > for my oracle stuff. Unfortunately, the SAN they purchased did not
allow
> > for multiple raid types within the structure. Soooo, he did the whole
darn
> > SAN (9.6TB) into a Raid 10.
> >
> > So of course, now they are running out of space. They're starting to
> > throw wild ideas of getting another SAN just for Oracle, etc.
> >
> > But, the question to the list is, whats the benefit of the SAN vs
Internal
> > storage? I'm not having any I/O issues that I'm aware of. I run a
> > dataguard setup, so we were not going to take advantage of any shadow
copy
> > on the SAN. Given that 6, 1TB internal drives will give me MORE space
than
> > I'll ever use in the time I have remaining here, I'm just not seeing the
> > benefit of the san.
> >
> > 1) What's the benefit
> > 2) Is S.A.M.E still the right philosophy?
> > 3) Is S.A.M.E really relevant or needed given todays high-Speed SANs?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>

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

Received on Fri Nov 02 2012 - 00:13:29 CET