RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Mogens wrote There are many things I don't get in this life. I doubt it very much... One of them is the statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?! Other than ignorance I see no way in which storage admin can be a nightmare, certainly as compared with OS or DB admin. As to cheap, as others have said, commodity disks are cheap proprietory disks that work with your specific storage solution aint. Until someone works out that there's a huge market for SANs that utilize off the shelf disks/switches etc. Niall -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Niall Litchfield INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Yep, if you buy ide drives from wholesalers. I want 4 disks of 73GB capacity for an HP storage network. $5600 for the first quote. Proprietary architectures generate expensive parts. -Original Message- Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:25 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L There are many things I don't get in this life. One of them is the statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?! Mogens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul, This is personal opinion, but it looks to me like your concerned about the database your creating for the client and may not have the total or corporate wide view your client has. We're heading down the SAN road not because of any specific database requirements but because disk storage has become an administrative nightmare as well as way too expensive. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Arun Annamalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/13/2003 12:24 PM Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are... 1) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front. 2) reduce redundancy -A unix userid with home directory attached to a paticular NFS drive on NAS/SAN, will able to see all his files when he logs into other servers. so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5. -Arun. Sr oracle dba - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? my reasons to recommend an external storage was.. 1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? 2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Can you share some of the reasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage (DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 META content=MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are.../FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=21) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=22) reduce redundancy -/FONTFONT face=Arial size=2Anbsp;unix useridnbsp;with home directory attached to a paticular NFSnbsp;drive on NAS/SAN,nbsp;willnbsp; able to see allnbsp;his files when he logs into othernbsp;servers./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2-Arun./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Sr oracle dba/FONT/DIV BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #00 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px DIV style=FONT: 10pt arial- Original Message - /DIV DIV style=BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: blackBFrom:/B A [EMAIL PROTECTED] href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rahul/A /DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBTo:/B A [EMAIL PROTECTED] href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L/A /DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBSent:/B Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM/DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBSubject:/B Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?/DIV DIVBR/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2my reasons to recommend an external storage was../FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=21) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive
RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Oh, Gods forbid the sysadmins would have to gulp do their job... HAHAHAHAHA!!! Scott Shafer San Antonio, TX 210.581.6217 -Original Message- From: Mogens Nørgaard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:25 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? There are many things I don't get in this life. One of them is the statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?! Mogens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul, This is personal opinion, but it looks to me like your concerned about the database your creating for the client and may not have the total or corporate wide view your client has. We're heading down the SAN road not because of any specific database requirements but because disk storage has become an administrative nightmare as well as way too expensive. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Arun Annamalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/13/2003 12:24 PM Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are... 1) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front. 2) reduce redundancy -A unix userid with home directory attached to a paticular NFS drive on NAS/SAN, will able to see all his files when he logs into other servers. so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5. -Arun. Sr oracle dba - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? my reasons to recommend an external storage was.. 1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? 2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Can you share some of the reasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage (DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 META content=MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are.../FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=21) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=22) reduce redundancy -/FONTFONT face=Arial size=2Anbsp;unix useridnbsp;with home directory attached to a paticular NFSnbsp;drive on NAS/SAN,nbsp;willnbsp; able to see allnbsp;his files when he logs into othernbsp;servers./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2-Arun./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Sr oracle dba/FONT/DIV BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #00 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px DIV style=FONT: 10pt arial- Original Message - /DIV DIV style=BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: blackBFrom:/B A [EMAIL PROTECTED] href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rahul/A /DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBTo:/B A [EMAIL PROTECTED] href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L/A /DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBSent:/B Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM/DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBSubject:/B Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?/DIV DIVBR/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2my reasons
Re:RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Humm, must of missed this one on the rebound. Anyway, here Disk space is an admin nightmare. Each time we want to reassign disks from one server to another here comes EMC to re-program the Symmetrix array otherwise the SA has the possibility of assigning 2 servers to the same disk. OOPS I really did not wnat to do a newfs on that disk!!!?!??! And at $4000 per disk (72GB) I would not say that their cheap. IDE drives have gotten real cheap, when will SCSI follow suit?? Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/14/2003 10:03 AM Oh, Gods forbid the sysadmins would have to gulp do their job... HAHAHAHAHA!!! Scott Shafer San Antonio, TX 210.581.6217 -Original Message- From: Mogens Norgaard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:25 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? There are many things I don't get in this life. One of them is the statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?! Mogens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul, This is personal opinion, but it looks to me like your concerned about the database your creating for the client and may not have the total or corporate wide view your client has. We're heading down the SAN road not because of any specific database requirements but because disk storage has become an administrative nightmare as well as way too expensive. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Arun Annamalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/13/2003 12:24 PM Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are... 1) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front. 2) reduce redundancy -A unix userid with home directory attached to a paticular NFS drive on NAS/SAN, will able to see all his files when he logs into other servers. so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5. -Arun. Sr oracle dba - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? my reasons to recommend an external storage was.. 1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? 2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Can you share some of the reasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage (DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 META content=MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are.../FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=21) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=22) reduce redundancy -/FONTFONT face=Arial size=2Anbsp;unix useridnbsp;with home directory attached to a paticular NFSnbsp;drive on NAS/SAN,nbsp;willnbsp; able to see allnbsp;his files when he logs into othernbsp;servers./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2-Arun./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Sr oracle dba/FONT/DIV BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #00 2px solid
RE: RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
All of the places I've worked its been sysadmins fat-fingering that has hosed or cross mounted disks. Then again, we've never had EMC... HP arrays are enough trouble. Scott Shafer San Antonio, TX 210.581.6217 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 12:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re:RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Humm, must of missed this one on the rebound. Anyway, here Disk space is an admin nightmare. Each time we want to reassign disks from one server to another here comes EMC to re-program the Symmetrix array otherwise the SA has the possibility of assigning 2 servers to the same disk. OOPS I really did not wnat to do a newfs on that disk!!!?!??! And at $4000 per disk (72GB) I would not say that their cheap. IDE drives have gotten real cheap, when will SCSI follow suit?? Dick Goulet Reply Separator Subject:RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/14/2003 10:03 AM Oh, Gods forbid the sysadmins would have to gulp do their job... HAHAHAHAHA!!! Scott Shafer San Antonio, TX 210.581.6217 -Original Message- From: Mogens Norgaard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:25 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? There are many things I don't get in this life. One of them is the statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?! Mogens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul, This is personal opinion, but it looks to me like your concerned about the database your creating for the client and may not have the total or corporate wide view your client has. We're heading down the SAN road not because of any specific database requirements but because disk storage has become an administrative nightmare as well as way too expensive. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Arun Annamalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/13/2003 12:24 PM Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are... 1) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front. 2) reduce redundancy -A unix userid with home directory attached to a paticular NFS drive on NAS/SAN, will able to see all his files when he logs into other servers. so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5. -Arun. Sr oracle dba - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? my reasons to recommend an external storage was.. 1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? 2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Can you share some of the reasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage (DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 META content=MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are.../FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=21) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front./FONT
Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good
reasons...the two main are...
1) High availability - When you have your database
files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the
primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the
front.
2) reduce redundancy -Aunix useridwith home directory attached to a paticular
NFSdrive on NAS/SAN,will able to see allhis files when
he logs into otherservers.
so far I heard "Net App" is low cost including with
Raid 5.
-Arun.
Sr oracle dba
- Original Message -
From:
Rahul
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38
PM
Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external
storage ?
my reasons to recommend an external storage
was..
1) the database size is 36GB, and according to
many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated
by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the
client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an
overkill ?
2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN
!!
- Original Message -
From:
Tim Gorman
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33
PM
Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external
storage ?
Can youshare some
ofthereasons related to your decision in choosing a
direct-attach storage(DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN
is a much smarter choice than DAS.
- Original Message -
From:
Rahul
To: Multiple recipients of list
ORACLE-L
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33
AM
Subject: why SAN ? why not external
storage ?
list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN,
the current oracle databases take around
36GB of storage i dnt understand there
reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage
box instead. How can i justify my desicion ?
(cost of not the factor)
TIA
rahul
Re[2]: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Rahul, This is personal opinion, but it looks to me like your concerned about the database your creating for the client and may not have the total or corporate wide view your client has. We're heading down the SAN road not because of any specific database requirements but because disk storage has become an administrative nightmare as well as way too expensive. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Arun Annamalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/13/2003 12:24 PM Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are... 1) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front. 2) reduce redundancy -A unix userid with home directory attached to a paticular NFS drive on NAS/SAN, will able to see all his files when he logs into other servers. so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5. -Arun. Sr oracle dba - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? my reasons to recommend an external storage was.. 1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? 2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Can you share some of the reasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage (DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 META content=MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are.../FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=21) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=22) reduce redundancy -/FONTFONT face=Arial size=2Anbsp;unix useridnbsp;with home directory attached to a paticular NFSnbsp;drive on NAS/SAN,nbsp;willnbsp; able to see allnbsp;his files when he logs into othernbsp;servers./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2-Arun./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Sr oracle dba/FONT/DIV BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #00 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px DIV style=FONT: 10pt arial- Original Message - /DIV DIV style=BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: blackBFrom:/B A [EMAIL PROTECTED] href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rahul/A /DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBTo:/B A [EMAIL PROTECTED] href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L/A /DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBSent:/B Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM/DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBSubject:/B Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?/DIV DIVBR/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2my reasons to recommend an external storage was../FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=21) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? /FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=22) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! /FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #00 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px DIV style=FONT: 10pt arial- Original Message - /DIV
Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
There are many things I don't get in this life. One of them is the statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?! Mogens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul, This is personal opinion, but it looks to me like your concerned about the database your creating for the client and may not have the total or corporate wide view your client has. We're heading down the SAN road not because of any specific database requirements but because disk storage has become an administrative nightmare as well as way too expensive. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Arun Annamalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/13/2003 12:24 PM Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are... 1) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front. 2) reduce redundancy -A unix userid with home directory attached to a paticular NFS drive on NAS/SAN, will able to see all his files when he logs into other servers. so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5. -Arun. Sr oracle dba - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? my reasons to recommend an external storage was.. 1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? 2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Can you share some of the reasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage (DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 META content=MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are.../FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=21) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=22) reduce redundancy -/FONTFONT face=Arial size=2Anbsp;unix useridnbsp;with home directory attached to a paticular NFSnbsp;drive on NAS/SAN,nbsp;willnbsp; able to see allnbsp;his files when he logs into othernbsp;servers./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2-Arun./FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2Sr oracle dba/FONT/DIV BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #00 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px DIV style=FONT: 10pt arial- Original Message - /DIV DIV style=BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: blackBFrom:/B A [EMAIL PROTECTED] href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rahul/A /DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBTo:/B A [EMAIL PROTECTED] href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L/A /DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBSent:/B Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM/DIV DIV style=FONT: 10pt arialBSubject:/B Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?/DIV DIVBR/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2my reasons to recommend an external storage was../FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=21) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? /FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=22) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! /FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=PADDING-RIGHT
RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
-Original Message- Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:25 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L There are many things I don't get in this life. One of them is the statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?! Mogens Disks are cheap. Reliable storage isn't, not really, not for large organizations. brian -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Brian Dunbar INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Disks are cheap until one asks for them ;) - Kirti -Original Message- Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:25 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L There are many things I don't get in this life. One of them is the statements about disk storage being an admin nightmare and way too expensive. Aren't disks very cheap these days?! Mogens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rahul, This is personal opinion, but it looks to me like your concerned about the database your creating for the client and may not have the total or corporate wide view your client has. We're heading down the SAN road not because of any specific database requirements but because disk storage has become an administrative nightmare as well as way too expensive. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Arun Annamalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/13/2003 12:24 PM Usaually SAN and NAS is used for several good reasons...the two main are... 1) High availability - When you have your database files on SAN/NAS then you can bring ur database on another server when the primary goes down. Obviously you have to use a cluster or Big IP (F5) on the front. 2) reduce redundancy -A unix userid with home directory attached to a paticular NFS drive on NAS/SAN, will able to see all his files when he logs into other servers. so far I heard Net App is low cost including with Raid 5. -Arun. Sr oracle dba - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:38 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? my reasons to recommend an external storage was.. 1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? 2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Can you share some of the reasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage (DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Deshpande, Kirti INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
why SAN ? why not external storage ?
list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul
Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Can youshare some ofthereasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage(DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul
RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Tim - Can you elaborate on those reasons? Our administrators feel DAS is usually much cheaper, and they are not convinced the SAN performance is there. Dennis Williams DBA, 40%OCP, 100% DBA Lifetouch, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:34 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Can you share some of the reasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage (DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - To: Multiple mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: DENNIS WILLIAMS INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
For Dick Goulet - - RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Dick ... did you have problems with Netapps on your archivelogs or just the datafiles or both?? We are considering using it for alternative archivelog solution... Last place we were at we did have a few issue with datafiles but it got worked out and worked fine after that. Brian -Original Message- Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:10 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Rahul, We're heading out onto the SAN route as well from the external storage world. Right now we use a number of HP-UX servers connected to one of two EMC symmetrix arrays for datafiles and one of two NetApp Filers for archive redo logs. They work well, but the EMC's are expensive and every now and then, like last year, you end up with a forklift upgrade. The NetApps are cheaper and are suppose to work for Oracle datafiles, but we've had a myriad of problems getting it to work. The idea of a SAN is that the actual disks can come from a number of vendors and the SAN implementation handles the differences so that you I only see available disk space. And from Oracle's point of view all of the disks are local, not remote or NFS mounted or NAS or any of that other weird stuff out there. I would not classify it as much as a cost, but flexibility issue. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Rahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/12/2003 12:33 AM list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type META content=MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT face=Arial size=2list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=236GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) /FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2TIA/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2rahul/FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV/BODY/HTML -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Spears, Brian INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
RE: For Dick Goulet - - RE: why SAN ? why not external storage
Brian I'm not Dick, but will respond anyway. We use a Netapp for our test system and it works fine for that. My experience has been that it is quite dependent on your network configuration (dedicated 100baseT as minimum), and multiple simultaneous reads and writes seems to bog it down. I would not use it for production datafiles expecting a heavy load, but archivelogs might be okay. Dennis Williams DBA, 40%OCP, 100% DBA Lifetouch, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:54 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Dick ... did you have problems with Netapps on your archivelogs or just the datafiles or both?? We are considering using it for alternative archivelog solution... Last place we were at we did have a few issue with datafiles but it got worked out and worked fine after that. Brian -Original Message- Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:10 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Rahul, We're heading out onto the SAN route as well from the external storage world. Right now we use a number of HP-UX servers connected to one of two EMC symmetrix arrays for datafiles and one of two NetApp Filers for archive redo logs. They work well, but the EMC's are expensive and every now and then, like last year, you end up with a forklift upgrade. The NetApps are cheaper and are suppose to work for Oracle datafiles, but we've had a myriad of problems getting it to work. The idea of a SAN is that the actual disks can come from a number of vendors and the SAN implementation handles the differences so that you I only see available disk space. And from Oracle's point of view all of the disks are local, not remote or NFS mounted or NAS or any of that other weird stuff out there. I would not classify it as much as a cost, but flexibility issue. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Rahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/12/2003 12:33 AM list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type META content=MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT face=Arial size=2list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=236GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) /FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2TIA/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2rahul/FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV/BODY/HTML -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Spears, Brian INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: DENNIS WILLIAMS INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Dick Goulet gave an excellent response to the list earlier -- I'd second him on each point he made. There is no doubt that DAS is cheaper on the original purchase, because you're only buying the disk. Obviously, a SAN has a few more bits of iron and wire. But have those administrators toted up the cost of tying storage directly to servers over time? Without the ability to shift storage from server to server as needs change? As you migrate services (like databases, like shared drives, like email) from server to server, can you always migrate the storage? Or do you have to buy new storage for the new server? Oh, and once you buy the new storage, how are you going to move the data? Over the LAN? People who are used to administering web servers and application servers don't think much about storage. A server is a server is a server. A server has disk attached. You can add to it. What's the problem? The problem starts when you start to have lots of servers that require lots of storage, and the services (a.k.a. applications) that they support change over time. They grow. They consolidate. Servers reach end of life. CIOs read a magazine article and get a wild idea. If you don't have a lot of storage-intensive servers (such as database servers) and a CIO who sticks to financial journals, then a SAN is overkill. I've not seen any evidence of performance problems with SANs, as opposed to DAS. I'd be interested to see numbers. A storage-area network (SAN) is merely a virtualization layer atop a bunch of direct-attach storage (DAS). If the underlying DAS is fibre-connected, then the SAN should be fibre-connected throughout, whereever appropriate. Of course, if the SAN head is connected to servers via 100Mb/s Ethernet instead of fibre (or some other obvious misconfiguration), there will be a problem. But attributing performance problems to the SAN virtualization is kind of like the old arguments when RAID0 was new (i.e. all that CPU expended to keep track of the scattered blocks across all those drives will make performance worse, not better!). A SAN is more complex on initial setup than just buying another DAS, but the sysadmins have to learn to keep up with technology also... - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:39 AM Tim - Can you elaborate on those reasons? Our administrators feel DAS is usually much cheaper, and they are not convinced the SAN performance is there. Dennis Williams DBA, 40%OCP, 100% DBA Lifetouch, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:34 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Can you share some of the reasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage (DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - To: Multiple mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: DENNIS WILLIAMS INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Tim Gorman INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Bingo! One of the reasons my team lead wants a SAN in here is to limit the vast amounts of wasted storage (wasted storage = wasted $$$)we have on our individual disparate systems. That savings must be weighed against the downsides of a SAN, such as the possibility of I/O contention and the single (or greatly reduced) point(s) of failure by the consolidation. I think we'll do just fine with a little care taken on the purchase (dual GBit fiber, redundant power supplies, etc.) and on the setup (UPS, generator, decent disk layout, etc.). I want it because of the promise of vast I/O thruput. While y'all can argue that one, our ERP/MRP database is on an HP AutoRAID 12h. Ain't no way in hell even a half-arsed SAN setup with multiple systems pounding it is going to be as slow as that. My $.02, Rich Rich JesseSystem/Database Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA -Original Message- Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:18 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Dick Goulet gave an excellent response to the list earlier -- I'd second him on each point he made. There is no doubt that DAS is cheaper on the original purchase, because you're only buying the disk. Obviously, a SAN has a few more bits of iron and wire. But have those administrators toted up the cost of tying storage directly to servers over time? Without the ability to shift storage from server to server as needs change? As you migrate services (like databases, like shared drives, like email) from server to server, can you always migrate the storage? Or do you have to buy new storage for the new server? Oh, and once you buy the new storage, how are you going to move the data? Over the LAN? People who are used to administering web servers and application servers don't think much about storage. A server is a server is a server. A server has disk attached. You can add to it. What's the problem? The problem starts when you start to have lots of servers that require lots of storage, and the services (a.k.a. applications) that they support change over time. They grow. They consolidate. Servers reach end of life. CIOs read a magazine article and get a wild idea. If you don't have a lot of storage-intensive servers (such as database servers) and a CIO who sticks to financial journals, then a SAN is overkill. I've not seen any evidence of performance problems with SANs, as opposed to DAS. I'd be interested to see numbers. A storage-area network (SAN) is merely a virtualization layer atop a bunch of direct-attach storage (DAS). If the underlying DAS is fibre-connected, then the SAN should be fibre-connected throughout, whereever appropriate. Of course, if the SAN head is connected to servers via 100Mb/s Ethernet instead of fibre (or some other obvious misconfiguration), there will be a problem. But attributing performance problems to the SAN virtualization is kind of like the old arguments when RAID0 was new (i.e. all that CPU expended to keep track of the scattered blocks across all those drives will make performance worse, not better!). A SAN is more complex on initial setup than just buying another DAS, but the sysadmins have to learn to keep up with technology also... -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jesse, Rich INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
For Dick Goulet - - RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Dick ... did you have problems with Netapps on your archivelogs or just the datafiles or both?? We are considering using it for alternative archivelog solution... Last place we were at we did have a few issue with datafiles but it got worked out and worked fine after that. Brian -Original Message- Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:10 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Rahul, We're heading out onto the SAN route as well from the external storage world. Right now we use a number of HP-UX servers connected to one of two EMC symmetrix arrays for datafiles and one of two NetApp Filers for archive redo logs. They work well, but the EMC's are expensive and every now and then, like last year, you end up with a forklift upgrade. The NetApps are cheaper and are suppose to work for Oracle datafiles, but we've had a myriad of problems getting it to work. The idea of a SAN is that the actual disks can come from a number of vendors and the SAN implementation handles the differences so that you I only see available disk space. And from Oracle's point of view all of the disks are local, not remote or NFS mounted or NAS or any of that other weird stuff out there. I would not classify it as much as a cost, but flexibility issue. Dick Goulet Reply Separator Author: Rahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/12/2003 12:33 AM list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN HTMLHEAD META content=text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type META content=MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307 name=GENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD BODY bgColor=#ff DIVFONT face=Arial size=2list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=236GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) /FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2TIA/FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=Arial size=2rahul/FONT/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV DIVnbsp;/DIV/BODY/HTML -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Spears, Brian INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
Bingo! One of the reasons my team lead wants a SAN in here is to limit the vast amounts of wasted storage (wasted storage = wasted $$$)we have on our individual disparate systems. That savings must be weighed against the downsides of a SAN, such as the possibility of I/O contention and the single (or greatly reduced) point(s) of failure by the consolidation. I think we'll do just fine with a little care taken on the purchase (dual GBit fiber, redundant power supplies, etc.) and on the setup (UPS, generator, decent disk layout, etc.). I want it because of the promise of vast I/O thruput. While y'all can argue that one, our ERP/MRP database is on an HP AutoRAID 12h. Ain't no way in hell even a half-arsed SAN setup with multiple systems pounding it is going to be as slow as that. My $.02, Rich Rich JesseSystem/Database Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA -Original Message- Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:18 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Dick Goulet gave an excellent response to the list earlier -- I'd second him on each point he made. There is no doubt that DAS is cheaper on the original purchase, because you're only buying the disk. Obviously, a SAN has a few more bits of iron and wire. But have those administrators toted up the cost of tying storage directly to servers over time? Without the ability to shift storage from server to server as needs change? As you migrate services (like databases, like shared drives, like email) from server to server, can you always migrate the storage? Or do you have to buy new storage for the new server? Oh, and once you buy the new storage, how are you going to move the data? Over the LAN? People who are used to administering web servers and application servers don't think much about storage. A server is a server is a server. A server has disk attached. You can add to it. What's the problem? The problem starts when you start to have lots of servers that require lots of storage, and the services (a.k.a. applications) that they support change over time. They grow. They consolidate. Servers reach end of life. CIOs read a magazine article and get a wild idea. If you don't have a lot of storage-intensive servers (such as database servers) and a CIO who sticks to financial journals, then a SAN is overkill. I've not seen any evidence of performance problems with SANs, as opposed to DAS. I'd be interested to see numbers. A storage-area network (SAN) is merely a virtualization layer atop a bunch of direct-attach storage (DAS). If the underlying DAS is fibre-connected, then the SAN should be fibre-connected throughout, whereever appropriate. Of course, if the SAN head is connected to servers via 100Mb/s Ethernet instead of fibre (or some other obvious misconfiguration), there will be a problem. But attributing performance problems to the SAN virtualization is kind of like the old arguments when RAID0 was new (i.e. all that CPU expended to keep track of the scattered blocks across all those drives will make performance worse, not better!). A SAN is more complex on initial setup than just buying another DAS, but the sysadmins have to learn to keep up with technology also... -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jesse, Rich INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services-- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California-- Mailing list and web hosting services - To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?
my reasons to recommend an external storage was.. 1) the database size is 36GB, and according to many documents i have read, SAN is not cost effevtive unless populated by a large numbers of drives !!, now for the client the cost is not the factor.. given the situation.. wouldnt a SAN be an overkill ? 2) NO DBA or SYS ADMIN skills to manage the SAN !! - Original Message - From: Tim Gorman To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:33 PM Subject: Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ? Can youshare some ofthereasons related to your decision in choosing a direct-attach storage(DAS) instead of a SAN? In general, a SAN is a much smarter choice than DAS. - Original Message - From: Rahul To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:33 AM Subject: why SAN ? why not external storage ? list, one of our clietns are going to by SAN, the current oracle databases take around 36GB of storage i dnt understand there reason to go for SAN, i sugguested to buy an external storage box instead. How can i justify my desicion ? (cost of not the factor) TIA rahul
