On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:26:23AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
consider is this: your SAN starts having funky problems, and your
database is down because of it. You call the vendor. They find out
you're running CentOS instead of RHEL and say that's the cause of your
problem (even though it probably isn't). How much will such a passing the
buck problem cost your company? If it's a significant number, you'd be
foolish to run CentOS instead of the real RHEL. Some SAN vendors can be
very, very picky about what they will support, and for most business
environments the RHEL subscription isn't so expensive that it's worth
wandering into an area where your support situation is fuzzy just to save
that money.
Correct. Far more sensible to skip the expensive SAN solution, not worry
about having to play games, and save *even more* money.
SANs have their place, but postgres storage generally isn't it; you'll
get more bang/buck with DAS and very likely better absolute performance
as well. SANs make sense if you're doing a shared filesystem (don't
even think about doing this with postgres), or if you're consolidating
backups & DR (which doesn't work especially well with databases).
Mike Stone
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
