RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-21 Thread Niall Litchfield 
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: RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-14 Thread Scott . Shafer 
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  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 
&g

Re:RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-14 Thread dgoulet 
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  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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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 - face=Arial 
> >size=2>A unix userid with home directory attached to a
>

RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-14 Thread Scott . Shafer 
Oh, Gods forbid the sysadmins would have to  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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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 - face=Arial 
> >size=2>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
> > >style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
> BORDER-LEFT:
> >#00 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> >  - Original Message - 
> >   >  style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
> black">From: 
> >

RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-14 Thread Nelson, Allan 
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
>
>
>
> 
>  name=GENERATOR> 
>
>
>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 -size=2>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 dir=ltr
>style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; 
>BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
>  - Original Message - 
>style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From: 
>  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Rahul 
>  
>  To:   href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">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 
>

RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-13 Thread Deshpande, Kirti 
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).

RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-13 Thread Brian Dunbar 


-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 ?

2003-03-13 Thread Mogens Nørgaard 
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









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: 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Rahul 
 
 To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">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: 
   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Tim Gorman 
   
   To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">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: 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Rahul

 
 To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">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 fac

Re[2]: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-13 Thread dgoulet 
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










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: 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Rahul 
  
  To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">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: 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Tim Gorman 

To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">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: 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Rahul

  
  To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">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

Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-13 Thread Arun Annamalai 



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
   
   
   

Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-12 Thread Rahul 



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
 
 
 

RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-12 Thread Rich . Jesse 

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).

For Dick Goulet - - RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-12 Thread BSpears 
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











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: 
  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 ?

2003-03-12 Thread Jesse, Rich 
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).

Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-12 Thread Tim Gorman 
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   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: For Dick Goulet - - RE: why SAN ? why not external storage

2003-03-12 Thread DENNIS WILLIAMS 
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











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: 
  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).

For Dick Goulet - - RE: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-12 Thread Spears, Brian 
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











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: 
  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: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-12 Thread DENNIS WILLIAMS 
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   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).

Re: why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-12 Thread Tim Gorman 



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
   
   
   

why SAN ? why not external storage ?

2003-03-12 Thread Rahul 



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