On 07/22/2010 06:58 PM, Les wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 09:25 +0200, birger wrote: >> But if it works and it means >> we (the back-end admins) can continue to override the users wishes and >> provide what they need instead of what they ask for, I'm all for it >> (like when DBA's come with very specific orders detailing raid type and >> stripe width for their data and log volumes and we give them everything >> from our standardized raid 5 pools) > This is one of the issues. You have decided on what they need. You may > be right from the viewpoint of storage, but from the access point you > could be way off the mark. A database's access speed is directly > related to the disk locations of the various fields and structures. > True you have given them storage at minimal cost to you, but what have > you cost the customer? Do you even have a way of benchmarking the > search times you have impacted? Do you truly understand the DBA's tasks > and the amount of data they have to search? Reminds me of GFS. Though it is certainly interesting technology, no one has come out with models that show it's performance benchmarks exceeding the performance of local storage. Does anyone know of large and mission critical databases that are heavily used, implemented with GFS? I think cloud computing may be interesting campus projects, but hardly a serious solution to critical business requirements. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
