Re: 10g RAC: max performance & min cost with miSCSI?

From: Ronald Rood <devnull_at_ronr.nl>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:02:33 +0100
Message-ID: <0001HW.BFA9D29901E743E6F0284550@news.individual.net>

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:12:04 +0100, DA Morgan wrote (in article <1132704722.796459_at_yasure>):

> slee328_at_gmail.com wrote:

>> Heikki:
>>
>> I agree with Daniel's recommendations because NetApps are FAST but it
>> is NAS. It provides 99.99% availability instead of the pricy SAN with
>> 99.999 availability. However, with the NetFiler, you save on clustered
>> file systems and with the costs saving, you can always mirror your
>> disks volumes to give you no single point of failure on the storage
>> unit. Unless you absolutely need the 64GB/s type of I/O throughput,
>> NetApp will do the job just fine. BTW, Oracle, Yahoo and Google uses
>> Netapps for their Oracle DBs as well.
>>
>> For the CPU, if you can only buy 1 CPU for your system, purchase the
>> IBM PPC chip instead of Xeon. You can go to www.tpc.org to find out
>> the numbers for this CPU. It is FAST and you can run RH Linux on it
>> instead of AIX.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stephen Lee

> 
> Actually there is no SAN on the planet that will provide five 9s of
> service. To achieve five 9s you need to diesel generators in the parking
> lot, dual redundant power conditioning, dual redundant networks and

And don't forget to power the diesel pumps using the emergency net !

With kind regards / met vriendelijke groeten, Ronald

http://ciber.nl
http://homepage.mac.com/ik_zelf/oracle Received on Wed Nov 23 2005 - 01:02:33 CST