| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | C. Bergström | 2008-02-20 13:52:42 | Re: Anyone using a SAN? |
| Previous Message | Douglas J Hunley | 2008-02-20 13:28:17 | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |