Yeah, the DAS we are considering is Dell MD3000, it has redundant hot
swappable raid controllers in active-active mode. Provision for hot spare
hard-disk. And it can take upto 15 disks in 3U, you can attach two more
MD1000 to it, giving a total of 45 disks in total.
On 9/12/07, david(at)lang(dot)hm <david(at)lang(dot)hm> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Decibel! wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 05:09:00PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:55:51PM -0500, Decibel! wrote:
> >>> Also, to reply to someone else's email... there is one big reason to
> >>> a SAN over direct storage: you can do HA that results in 0 data loss.
> >>> Good SANs are engineered to be highly redundant, with multiple
> >>> controllers, PSUs, etc, so that the odds of losing the SAN itself are
> >>> very, very low. The same isn't true with DAS.
> >> You can get DAS arrays with multiple controllers, PSUs, etc. DAS !=
> >> single disk.
> > It's still in the same chassis, though, which means if you lose memory
> > or mobo you're still screwed. In a SAN setup for redundancy, there's
> > very little in the way of a single point of failure; generally only the
> > backplane, and because there's very little that's on there it's
> > extremely rare for one to fail.
> not nessasarily. direct attached doesn't mean in the same chassis,
> external drive shelves attached via SCSI are still DAS
> you can even have DAS attached to a pair of machines, with the second box
> configured to mount the drives only if the first one dies.
> David Lang
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tobias Brox||Date: 2007-09-12 05:50:58|
|Subject: Re: SAN vs Internal Disks|
|Previous:||From: El-Lotso||Date: 2007-09-12 02:48:28|
|Subject: Re: Re: 500rows = 1min/2.5k rows=20min/6K rows 2 hoursand still running|