Re: Is Raid 5 really that bad for Oracle?

bdbafh_at_gmail.com (Paul Drake) wrote in message news:<910046b4.0408050659.3cfa307c_at_posting.google.com>...
> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1091677845.282907_at_yasure>...
> > Noons wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel Morgan apparently said,on my timestamp of 4/08/2004 12:22 AM:
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> Wait until the IT damager decides to go to a NAS
> > >>> because it's "better value"...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The performance difference between SAN and NAS used to be of critical
> > >> importance. I am not seeing enough difference these days to justify
> > >> the huge difference in price. Is anyone having a different experience?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Of course there are exceptions. But IME, I've never seen a
> > > network-based I/O system that can provide the performance
> > > scalability of a channel I/O system. Don't forget that
> > > a NAS uses one or more network connections presumably in a
> > > single card.
> > > Now I don't care how fast your Ethernet may be, it just by design
> > > cannot cope with a busy I/O demand. Single-task, single-user
> > > (the way "scalability is "measured" nowadays...) it may
> > > show good results. Wait for the first collision...
> >
> > Actually we use ethernet binding ... so we pretty easily construct a
> > far bigger pipe.
> >
> > Not fiber I'll grant you but still ... the difference doesn't seem to
> > be large enough to justify the cost.
>
> Daniel,
>
> "Ethernet binding"?
> Sounds like your networking config is not getting enough fibre. ;)
> I prefer trunking myself, but then again, its vendorspeak.
>
> "aggregation" might be vendor agnostic.
>
> ok. this was a troll in that it provided no real value other than an
> attempt at a cheap laugh in that Storage mounted over Ethernet mind
> have digestive track problems.
>
> back to the front ...
>
> -bdbafh

Stuffing all the storage you need in close proximity of a server is exactly ike stuffing all the food you are about to eat right in mouth -- it can hold only so much;

Of course you can opt for your ass: it might hold more? it is more scalable?! But you must agree to a certain limit assuming you are not a 300 pound girlie.

If you agree to your ass limitations; then you probably would consider dANIALs anus for more storage and more scalability and of course his alikes as well.

Then perhaps you would get NOT so efficient solution. Now add lots and lots storage boxes full of fast static ram connected over 10-gigabit NICs (scale as much as required) till you beat the space-limited-not-so-scalable-dANIELs-mouth-solution. Received on Thu Aug 05 2004 - 13:46:47 CDT