"Benjamin Krajmalnik" <kraj(at)illumen(dot)com> wrote:
> The nature of the application dictates that we use shared storage to
> provide high availability (in case one of the servers has a
> failure).
At the risk of starting a flame war, I'd suggest that you compare the
cost and benefit of the proposed solution to replication onto multiple
servers. In my experience, SAN solutions have had more down time,
worse performance, and more lost data than directly attached storage.
The only thing that matched with the sales pitch was the higher price.
Don't sign off on any solution without doing your own testing.
-Kevin