[quoted text, click to view] > I am not sure about the SAN advice. Other than it is good advice for
> setting up mid-large (>300 GB) scale system.
SAN is not a solution designed only for large databases, it is also
very handy when performance is critical. Size does not always matter.
[quoted text, click to view] > However there are a lot of
> discussions on whether dedicated disk is better for database solutions.
Yep, there is also a lot of discussions about Elvis whereabouts...
Seriously, a LUN of 14 disks in a dedicated RAID-10 array will offer a
performance that a single disk can't possibly achieve. Even a 4-disks
array will be faster. Thanks to the striping, the workload is spread
across all the disks (actually half of them).
Good performance can be achieved with a traditional RAID controller;
however the read/write cache and the impressive speed (up to 4G/s on FC
these days) are features that make SAN the best choice for databases
storage. As long as there is some room in the budget of course.
In many (or most) scenarios the SAN can be just too expensive. But as
far as the performance goes, this is the best choice.
[quoted text, click to view] > So if you don't have a SAN for you system I would not worry about it.
I agree that SAN can be overkill in some situations. However, you have
no idea what are the load and performance requirements, so I wonder how
you can make such a statement.
[quoted text, click to view] > Hope this helps,
>
> Myles Matheson
> Data Warehouse Architect
A data warehouse architect that is not sure that SAN are a good
solution for ETL databases... Quite puzzling.