http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061202124005AAiCwLW
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 5:52 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: DB server RAID Sorry Ken, but I'm still of the mind that a TB is a very large amount. By the way, I know that TB is terabyte, but what exactly is PB? Joe Heaton ________________________________ From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:42 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: DB server RAID I don't think 1 PB is really all that much storage for companies that have hundreds of thousands of employees... Cheers Ken From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2008 3:09 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: DB server RAID PB?? Holy cow, what in the world could need that much storage? Joe Heaton ________________________________ From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:08 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: DB server RAID I'm visiting our Seattle office at the moment. There are two Netapp arrays here (3000 and 2000 series), for a total of 87 TB of space(320 spindles). I talked to one of the guys looking after it and he said that the perf was just as good as the equivalent EMC Clarions, and the management was light years ahead. The Netapp stuff must be decent. Of the major oil companies is doing the largest MOSS implementation in the world at the moment backed by Netapp storage (around 1PB of storage apparently). Cheers Ken ________________________________ From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:49 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: DB server RAID Basically I am doing a SQL 2005 Cluster Environment right now with DL 580G5's and SAN attached storage to fit about 50-100 databases concurrent. 4 Quad-Core processors, 16GB of RAM, EMC SAN ( DMX 1000), 2 4GB Qlogic HBA's. Which is my top tier. Basically after this well be doing a stand-alone middle tier SQL server which is a Dual Quad-Core with 8GB of RAM, and SAN disk partitioned out accordingly. ( RAID 1+0, RAID 1, separate LUN's etc etc) Then Low End Testing is DL 380G5 Dual Quad-Core Processor 4GB of RAM, local SAS 146.8GB 10K, in a RAID 1+0 configuration with different partitions for each of the functions. ( This is staging) Once I can get funding for alternative site, it will be duplicated and using mirroring, or stretch clustering to make site-to-site fault tolerance. Also: If anyone is using NETAPP storage out there I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences on there product line, we are looking for alternatives to our EMC SAN right now, and there offerings and management looks awfully attractive. Thanks Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -----Original Message----- From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:37 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: DB server RAID Wow EZ, that's a lot of hardware. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to match what they are suggesting, and to be honest, I don't think our databases need that much horsepower. So, being stuck with what I have, 6 SAS disks, on a single PERC5i controller, I'm looking at my options. Joe Heaton ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
