Re: Is Raid 5 really that bad for Oracle?

teraknowledgesystems_at_yahoo.com (omlet v4) wrote in message news:<fc85c159.0408051046.2c8da77c_at_posting.google.com>...
> 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.

Stop trying to prove yourself intelligent. You've failed miserably in every post since your original spam in this newsgroup.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Thu Aug 05 2004 - 18:14:35 CDT