Re: AIX or W2k3 to run Cluster?

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> kirjoitti viestissä:1122046201.575163_at_yasure...
> Jack wrote:
>> I would not take NAS, even they have come better. (perhaps SAN is even
>> mandatory).
>
> Why? Prejudice and mythology from how things were years ago? You might
> want to note that Oracle Corp., itself, uses a large amount of NFS
> mounted NAS. And if it is good enough for Larry ... it is good enough
> for me. So do a very large number of Oracle's customers.
>

If your system is relative small then SAN is not so expensive. NAS is good enough if you do not want something better (as SAN).

>> SAN with RAID-10 will be good choice (1MB stribe size, or at least
>> 256kb).
>> Look that hardware is RAC-certified.
>
> How can you feel comfortable giving this kind of specific advice when
> you don't know the OP's storage vendor, don't know the nature of the
> i/o that will be done, etc.
>

Morgan, you would likely want to count every bits, but there is also an easy way:
 Look: http://otn.oracle.com/deploy/performance/pdf/opt_storage_conf.pdf  You might also have a look at Juan Loaiza's article "Optimal Storage  Configuration Made Easy" http://technet.oracle.com/deploy/performance/

>> For reference:
>> http://h71019.www7.hp.com/ActiveAnswers/downloads/HPInfiniBandSolution_OracleRAC.pdf
>> http://download.oracle.com/docs/pdf/B10766_08.pdf
>
> I don't believe this. First you reocmmend "relatively cheap" Intel-based
> hardware and then you suggest the most expensive mem-interconnect strategy
> possible. How does this make sense? And what does Intel
> hardware or Linux have to do with the SAN vs NAS question at all?

Well, it'is only meaning is: to look also some other vendors than IBM. Do you think that Proliant DL380 is too expensive server?

-Jack- Received on Fri Jul 22 2005 - 11:51:42 CDT