Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SAN vs Internal Disks

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SAN vs Internal Disks
Date: 2007-09-07 10:04:49
Message-ID: 20070907100446.GE1795@mathom.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:26:23AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
>consider is this:  your SAN starts having funky problems, and your 
>database is down because of it.  You call the vendor.  They find out 
>you're running CentOS instead of RHEL and say that's the cause of your 
>problem (even though it probably isn't).  How much will such a passing the 
>buck problem cost your company?  If it's a significant number, you'd be 
>foolish to run CentOS instead of the real RHEL.  Some SAN vendors can be 
>very, very picky about what they will support, and for most business 
>environments the RHEL subscription isn't so expensive that it's worth 
>wandering into an area where your support situation is fuzzy just to save 
>that money.

Correct. Far more sensible to skip the expensive SAN solution, not worry 
about having to play games, and save *even more* money. 

SANs have their place, but postgres storage generally isn't it; you'll 
get more bang/buck with DAS and very likely better absolute performance 
as well.  SANs make sense if you're doing a shared filesystem (don't 
even think about doing this with postgres), or if you're consolidating 
backups & DR (which doesn't work especially well with databases).

Mike Stone

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Michael StoneDate: 2007-09-07 10:11:21
Subject: Re: postgres memory management issues?
Previous:From: Sven GeislerDate: 2007-09-07 09:50:15
Subject: Re: utilising multi-cpu/core machines?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group