On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:57:51AM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote: > OK. My thought process was that having non local storage as say a big raid > 5 san ( I am talking 5 TB with expansion capability up to 10 ) would allow > me to have redundancy, expandability, and hopefully still retain decent > performance from the db. I also would hopefully then not have to do > periodic backups from the db server to some other type of storage. Is this > not a good idea? How bad of a performance hit are we talking about? Also, > in regards to the commit data integrity, as far as the db is concerned once > the data is sent to the san or nas isn't it "written"? The storage may have > that write in cache, but from my reading and understanding of how these > various storage devices work that is how they keep up performance. I would > expect my bottleneck if any to be the actual Ethernet transfer to the > storage, and I am going to try and compensate for that with a full gigabit > backbone. Well, if you have to have both the best performance and remote attach storage, I think you'll find that a fibre-channel SAN is still the king of the hill. 4Gb FC switches are common now, though finding a 4Gb HBA for your computer might be a trick. 2Gb HBAs are everywhere in FC land. That's a premium price solution, however, and I don't know anything about how well PG would perform with a FC SAN. We use our SAN for bulk science data and leave the PGDB on a separate machine with local disk. -- Steve Wampler -- swampler@xxxxxxxx The gods that smiled on your birth are now laughing out loud.
