Re: SAN versus NAS versus direct attached storage

Andrew J. Kelly wrote:
> 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/

It takes a lot of courage to make an incorrect statement about NAS and Oracle and then support it with garbage from Microsoft.

NFS mounted NAS is fully supported by Oracle and is used in Redwood Shores as well as by a substantial percentage of Oracle's customers.

And Clustering, as with RAC, is fully supported on NFS mounted NAS devices.

BTW: UNIX is not a flavour of Windows.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)