On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 05:09:00PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 03:55:51PM -0500, Decibel! wrote: > >Also, to reply to someone else's email... there is one big reason to use > >a SAN over direct storage: you can do HA that results in 0 data loss. > >Good SANs are engineered to be highly redundant, with multiple > >controllers, PSUs, etc, so that the odds of losing the SAN itself are > >very, very low. The same isn't true with DAS. > > You can get DAS arrays with multiple controllers, PSUs, etc. DAS != > single disk. It's still in the same chassis, though, which means if you lose memory or mobo you're still screwed. In a SAN setup for redundancy, there's very little in the way of a single point of failure; generally only the backplane, and because there's very little that's on there it's extremely rare for one to fail. -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Attachment:
pgpcmTaSyu0Al.pgp
Description: PGP signature
