Re: SAN/NAS Recommendation

On 24 May 2006 13:54:16 -0700, "David" <dlejeune@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


We anticipate our maximum size threshold for the Oracle database being
in the 10-20TB range. Our application is very write intensive. To
accomplish these writes, our custom ETL process performs a significant
amount of reads on primarily recent data to determine it's inserts. We
also have a web-presentation layer but our user base is very limited
(our real-time ETL process is a factor of 100 greater load wise).

Question everything, especially what your dba's tell you. As per
below, if your current environment has been serviceable, and it's raid
5, then your application is not write intensive.


From everything I have read NAS solutions offer a more inexpensive
approach allowing one to scale the size of your storage but do not
measure up to FC SAN solutions when it comes to performance. We also
have to keep an eye on cost - which obviously SANs are much more
expensive.

Again, question everything. There is nothing inherintly slower about
NAS v. SAN. It's all in the architecture.
Also, SAN's are not obviously more expensive. Requirements drive cost
through features. Some features cost more in one than the other.


Would be curous:

1) What type of vendors (EMC/Legato, HTC, NetApp, etc.) and solutions
(NAS, SAN, etc.) would you recommend.

Lets give this a generic go.

Oracle over NFS on NetApp. I can't tell how many spindles are in your
current environment but I would suspect that a 980c with 4 shelves
should be sufficient.
Add snapmirror for DR, and snaprestore for backup/restore and
deve/test environments. Flexcache comes built into the OS, as do
flexvols and a few other nifty db features.


2) NAS or SAN - between the two, is there a general rule as to the cost
per TB? Would be curious just order of magnitude. Does not have to be
exact by any means.

Cost is almost always based on vendor desire to get/keep you as a
customer. There are street prices, discount prices, and tier1 prices.
If you have no NetApp on the floor, even more so if you are replacing
a "competitor", then the vendor is usually ready to go for discount+.


3) What type of redundancy capabilities would we gain going with a SAN
over NAS or even over our existing DAS?

Potentially none, if you're DAS was setup with HA in mind. There is
also no increased redundancy between NAS or SAN, both are equally
redundant if architected correctly.


4) Our current DAS is in a Raid 5 configuration - we did this to
maximize space but still give us some amount of redundancy. With the
new solution we are looking to Raid 10 or 0+1 - I would think 0+1
(mirror then stripe) would be best so that if a drive goes out, you
have a hot-spare on that side which becomes the new mirror and don't
have to re-sync the entire other striped set of drives (as you would in
Raid 10).

Most people can put raid type aside and look for performance and
reliability. Absolute reliability is optimized in raid 10 (striped
mirror as opposed to a mirrored stripe) but, again, if raid 5 has been
serviceable then anything is an improvement.
Raid DP in NetApp world (and most vendors have a similar if not
identical concept) is extremely reliable.


5) Has anyone implemented a hierarchical storage solution - what are
your throughts on it if so? Dell when pitching us EMC/Legato made that
seem like the latest rage - putting your latest data (to include our
massive inserts) on the fastest storage then having Legato
automatically move it to slower and cheaper storage.

The product I've heard the best of is Princeton Softech. They have a
db archiver that has been around a long time now. I know nothing
about the Legato solution though.

HSM is the latest rage if you go for the latest rage. ILM
specifically was last years golden child, this years it's
virtualization....again.
Only worry about it if it solves a business driver. Never do anything
for the sake of doing it. At least not when you're the one getting
paged when the thing barfs. KISS (keep it simple stupid) will apply
to the end of time.

~F
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SAN/NAS Recommendation
    ... NAS v. SAN. ... Requirements drive cost ... Switch pots and HBA ports are more expensive for a SAN than for a NAS. ... remember EMC offering us drives for next to nothing, but support on the drives was more than purchase. ...
    (comp.arch.storage)
  • Re: Network Storage Help
    ... At the moment cost and flexibility is key for this gent at the moment. ... associated with a new SAN setup is likely to have a cost impact? ... Also, expanding a NAS setup ...
    (comp.arch.storage)
  • Re: AIX or W2k3 to run Cluster?
    ... >> SAN vs NAS ... > Probably NAS as the additional cost for SAN rarely is justified by ... Nowadays Intel-based hardware is relatively cheap. ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: How to verify/fix High Disk Read Latencies in Exch2003 ?
    ... Do they all map LUNs to your SAN? ... > wondering how the disk could be highly utilized if I have no users ... >> following formulats for the RAID type of each LUN: ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Budgeting for RV travel
    ... detour thru Mexico and save fuel costs. ... What did it cost you to get to San ... San Carlos is a nice place for snorkeling, ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
Loading