Since the OP didn't say anything in regards to Oracle I assumed he was
referring to SQL Server. I see now that he cross posted but as a habit I
don't check the links. I didn't expect to have such an open question posted
to both an Oracle and SQL Server newsgroup as the technologies and even
terminologies are so different. So don't get your panties in an uproar as I
was not addressing your sacred kingdom.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1134944079.66441_at_jetspin.drizzle.com...
> 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)
Received on Sun Dec 18 2005 - 21:47:38 CST
