Re: Space wasted because of automatic undo management

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:49:32 -0800
Message-ID: <1112399158.64263@yasure>

Mark Bole wrote:

> HansF wrote:
>

>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:07:54 -0800, Vsevolod Afanassiev interested us by
>> writing:
>>
>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yup.  Ask your boss which is cheaper ...
>> a) your salary for the time you spend managing rollback segments, or
>> b) 200GB worth of disk drive to set it up automatically
>>
>> Note that even high-end SAN certified drives go for under $2000, and 
>> Linux
>> or Windows-ready ones for [well under] under $200.
>> Any counter-thoughts?

>
>
> I couldn't agree more with the arguments in favor of adding more disk
> space in this situation. However I wish folks would stop needlessly
> weakening the arguments by citing retail $/GB numbers for adding disk
> storage as if they comprised the total economic cost.
>
> For every disk added to production, frequently the same amount (or more)
> of disk must be added to test, development, etc. Then there's the
> increased cost for backup retention, online standby, and hot spares to
> match the increase in primary storage. Power supply, rack space, and so
> one are not free. And I've seen too many examples first-hand of
> administrators who incur labor costs ten times greater than the cost of
> the disks just trying to configure and integrate them into a running
> system, because it's not something they do often enough to be good at it.
>
> -Mark Bole

I understand your point but the number of experiences I have had with dev and test configured as identical to prod is a number remarkably close to zero.

There may be situations where this is an issue but for the vast majority of situations ... throwing another disk at the situation, or a larger disk, is an appropriate thing to suggest.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Fri Apr 01 2005 - 17:49:32 CST