RE: comparison HP-san vs netapp

[Jeroen van Sluisdam]

Dick, Mathew   Thanks for your responses. It helped making clear our choice in convincing mng We will go for an HP-Eva3000 san solution. We have only a 100Mb network and this makes clear for all cost-minded people we have to make additional investments such that a netapp solution is more expensive compared to the eva.   Jeroen     -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Goulet, Dick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: Thursday, October 23, 2003 19:04 Aan: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Onderwerp: RE: comparison HP-san vs netapp   Jeroen,       NetApp depends on TCP/IP to use their products.  Now that's NOT a bad thing, but you need to isolate the file traffic from your general network.  With a SAN your using normal disk io channels into the switch, which effectively isolates file activity from the network.  It's your choice, but having to use NFS for everything can become one heck of a bottleneck.   Dick Goulet Senior Oracle DBA Oracle Certified 8i DBA -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen van Sluisdam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:49 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: comparison HP-san vs netapp   Hi,   I need urgently a qualitative comparison between an SAN (based on eva3000) and netapp F825 environment concerning oracle. We have been tallking to suppliers now for weeks and suddenly a manager comes up with a netapps alternative and we have a deadline to decide already weeks ago. Anybody with real good links or shortlist of conclusions, criteria on this?   Thnx in advance,   Jeroen