From: | Tena Sakai <tsakai(at)gallo(dot)ucsf(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [NOVICE] - SAN/NAS/DAS - Need advises |
Date: | 2010-09-07 20:47:11 |
Message-ID: | C8ABF2DF.C419%tsakai@gallo.ucsf.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Hi everybody,
I have been reading this thread and I got the idea that
SANs to avoid, but would somebody please give a bit of
Comparison/perspective on NAS?
Regards,
Tena Sakai
tsakai(at)gallo(dot)ucsf(dot)edu
On 9/7/10 12:36 PM, "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/7/10 12:06 PM, Jesper Krogh wrote:
>> On 2010-09-07 20:42, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>> With the right supplier, you can plug in literally 100 hard drives to
>>> a regular server with DAS and for a fraction of the cost of a SAN.
>> Ok, recently I have compared prices a NexSan SASBeast with 42 15K SAS drives
>> with a HP MDS600 with 15K SAS drives.
>>
>> The first is 8gbit Fibre Channel, the last is 3Gbit DAS SAS. The
>> fibre channel version is about 20% more expensive pr TB.
>>
>> So of course it is a "fraction of the cost of a SAN", but it is a
>> fairly small one.
>
> Are you really comparing equal systems? "8gbit Fibre Channel" means a single
> Fibre Channel shared by 42 disks, whereas "3GBit DAS SAS" means 42 3gbit
> channels running in parallel. It seems like you'd really need some realistic
> benchmarks that emulate your actual server load before you'd know how these
> two systems compare.
>
> Craig
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-09-07 20:47:55 | Re: [NOVICE] - SAN/NAS/DAS - Need advises |
Previous Message | Craig James | 2010-09-07 19:36:18 | Re: [NOVICE] - SAN/NAS/DAS - Need advises |