Oh I see now. Forgive my ignorance with the terms. Let me explain a bit more about the logic behind that.
I work for a Television and Radio broadcast software development company. Our software is entirely dependant upon MSSQL, MySQL and PostgreSQL. Since we virtualize about 75% of our environment, including SQL servers, and run everything in redundant pools via XenMotion, we have to utilize SANS. Performance wise, we see better disk utilization, and IOP performance when connected to the SANS space versus DA storage on a typical RAID 1, or 5 for redundancy. We use both RAID z and RAID 10 at this point, as for the last 15 years we've gone through every configuration you could think of. I've been architecting DB infrastructures for companies like Capital One and my current company on very large scales for many years, and given the proper budget, and initial design, a SAN infrastructure can (and is) a very fast one. Additionally, we use 8GB fiber on every host for the SAN space as well as separate 10GB Ethernet uplinks to these hosts. Now, my email to the gentleman before, was based on the "assumption" (I know, shame on me), that he's buy a Dell, IBM, or HP server of some sort, and it would have your standard Perc or QLogic RAID controller that supports standard RAID 0, 1 or 5 configurations. Given the amount of IO he was expecting, I proposed he offload the DB services to another physical source to ensure that local functions were uninterrupted. Obviously with any *SQL configuration, offloading the DB files to separate physical spindles is the best, simply due to the nature of any Database engine (You know, traditional LOGS and DATA on separate physical spindles etc..) So I guess I should have cited my logic behind it as well. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for keeping folks accountable. It's good that all the information is put out there in it's entirety with real life experience, and not just "do it this way because I say so". As for proof, hehe, not sure how to prove the last 15 years of work I've done. I can just tell you what my experience has been with the given technologies. Hope that helps my friend. Have a good one. -----Original Message----- From: freeradius-users-bounces+jjulson=marketron....@lists.freeradius.org [mailto:freeradius-users-bounces+jjulson=marketron....@lists.freeradius.org] On Behalf Of Arran Cudbard-Bell Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 9:59 AM To: FreeRadius users mailing list Subject: Re: New FreeRADIUS Deployment On 16 Aug 2012, at 23:01, "Julson, Jim" <jjul...@marketron.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I get what you mean by "(citation needed)". Forgive me, I hope > I didn't do something wrong by posting that to the List. Sorry if I caused a > problem. >From what i've read DA (directly attached) storage still has the lead over SAN >based storage in terms of IOP/s and bandwidth. So suggesting a SAN based >solution for the database data volume seemed a bit strange, and I was >wondering if you had any evidence to back it up. -Arran http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/citation-needed - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html The information contained in this e-mail message may be confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
