Re: SAN versus NAS versus direct attached storage

First off NAS is not supported for databases except for one condition that has to use a trace flag. When it comes to SAN vs. direct attached it depends on so many factors as to which is the correct or fastest solution. SAN's typically have much more cache than direct attached and may be faster in higher thruput situations. But direct attached can be just under the right scenario as well. You really need to start by identifying your requirements before you can decide on a technology. For instance if you ever intend to use Clustering you can forget direct attached. Here are some links you may want to have a look at:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlIObasics.mspx

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;231619

http://www.sql-server-performance.com/

-- 
Andrew J. Kelly  SQL MVP


"D Goyal" <goyald_at_gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1134919624.059774.207780_at_g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


> Friends

> I am trying to identify pros and cons of SAN verus NAS versus direct

> attached storage for OLTP as well as OLAP databases. Common sense tells

> me that direct attached storage should give me best performance,

> closely followed by SAN (My common sense may be nonsense, though).

> However, I am not able to find any published comparision, performance

> figures etc to conclude something on this subject with confidence.

>

> Can you please guide me to some references? ( or may be share your

> experience)

>

> Thanks and regards

>