| From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SAN vs Internal Disks |
| Date: | 2007-09-07 13:16:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20070907131601.GG1795@mathom.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:33:41PM +0200, Tobias Brox wrote:
>Advantages:
>
> 1. Higher I/O (at least the salesman claims so)
Benchmark it. It is extremely unlikely that you'll get I/O *as good as*
DAS at a similar price point.
> 2. Easier to upgrade the disk capacity
Is this an issue? You may find that you can simply get dramatically more
space for the money with DAS and not have to worry about an upgrade.
Also, you can use the postgres tablespace functionality to migrate data
to a new partition fairly transparently.
> 3. Easy to set up "warm standby" functionality. (Then again, if the
> postgres server fails miserably, it's likely to be due to a disk
> crash).
You may find that using db replication will gain you even more
reliability for less money.
>Also, my boss states that "all big enterprises uses SAN nowadays".
Use SAN *for what*?
Mike Stone
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-07 14:56:47 | Re: postgres memory management issues? |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-09-07 12:56:15 | Re: DRBD and Postgres: how to improve the perfomance? |