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

Re: Anyone using a SAN?

From: Matthew <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Anyone using a SAN?
Date: 2008-02-20 13:41:31
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0802201338470.20402@aragorn.flymine.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Peter Koczan wrote:
> One of the other things I was interested in was the "hidden costs" of
> a SAN. For instance, we'd probably have to invest in more UPS capacity
> to protect our data. Are there any other similar points that people
> don't initially consider regarding a SAN?

You may well find that the hardware required in each machine to access the 
SAN (fibrechannel cards, etc) and switches are way more expensive than 
just shoving a cheap hard drive in each machine. Hard drives are 
mass-produced, and remarkably cheap for what they do. SAN hardware is 
specialist, and expensive.

Matthew

-- 
Nog:     Look! They've made me into an ensign!
O'Brien: I didn't know things were going so badly.
Nog:     Frightening, isn't it?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: C. BergströmDate: 2008-02-20 13:52:42
Subject: Re: Anyone using a SAN?
Previous:From: Douglas J HunleyDate: 2008-02-20 13:28:17
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

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