Re: [PERFORMANCE] expanding to SAN: which portion best to move

I'm asking them for (real) benchmarks, thanks for the advice. (fio is not
available for us now to do it myself, grmbl)

It just occurred to me that it is not necessarily the case that reading the
indexes causes a lot of random I/O (on the index itself).
I mean, maybe the index is generally read sequentially and then, when
retrieving the data, there is a lot of random I/O.

if it's a long story, any tips for info about this (book or web site)?

cheers,

wbl

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> wrote:

> On 2011-05-04 07:25, Willy-Bas Loos wrote:
>
>> are you saying that, generally speaking, moving the data would be better
>> unless the SAN performs worse than the disks?
>>
> It was more, "given all the incertainties, that seems like the least
> risky".
> The SAN might actually be less well performing than what you currently
> have, you dont know yet I guess?
>
>
> besides your point that it depends on what our end looks like i mean.
>> (and what do you mean by "the DAS way", sry no native speaker)
>>
> DAS way => A disk array where the database has sole access
> to the hardware (not shared among other systems). Examples
> are Dell MD1200/1220 or similary.
>
> --
> Jesper
>
>

--
"Patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others
because you were born in it." -- George Bernard Shaw