What is preferred for Oracle databases?
Printable View
What is preferred for Oracle databases?
if one was better than the other, then the other wouldnt exist.
They are both good, depends what your nheeds are - do you understand the differences?
Thanks for the quick reply. To be honest, I dont know what the differences are. I would guess, at the very basic, my main interest would be how easy it is to take snapshots of prod db and restore it to test (on the same box or diff server). Can you tell me a good point to start looking at this? There is too much info on the web..
It's relatively easy, but SAN and NAS don't come into play either way. True, SAN and NAS have technology that let you break mirrors and get a snapshot of your data, but so do a lot of other storage devices.
SAN storage attached to the server via switch and HBA .
NAS storage is mounted on the server via another server , almost like NFS.
Obviously for the system with the high perfromance requirements and expectation SAN is a must. Otherwise NAS will do.
and what evidence do you have that NAS is bad for performance?
your enterprise storage admin is the weakest link - trust no one Mulder . SANE SAN is must read
To the OP, just checking you realise this: Oracle only support certain NAS devices: http://www.oracle.com/technology/dep...ndors_nfs.html
I could do fancy testging to prove it, but here is the very simple one:
Try to create a large datafile (above 4Gb) on both systems keeping everything else the same and you will see the difference. It is not unusual to have 10-15Mb per seconde transfer rate on NAS and much high on SAN. If you can live with the slower IO go for NAS, it is cheaper. Otherwise stick with the SAN
creating a tablespace isnt a very good indicator of whether NAS or SAN is good enough for your app. It proves nothing
Of course you can perform you own test, however creating big datafiles is quite conclusive because every sungle block has to be "formatted" .
Measure IO performance and u will see that you can pump much more data per sec on SAN versus same server using NAS.
BTW, what is your evidence that NAS is same or better than SAN?
Pffffffttttt.......... Solid State Drives all the way!
Solid State, well maybe...
There are 3 options: Price, Performance and Availability.
You may pick only 2.
That only tests Sequential Write performance. Which is hardly representative of a DB. Except for the online redo logs and maybe a few special cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by BV1963
My thought would be to test Sequential Read, Sequential write, Random read and Random Writes. Then make a determination as to the best storage medium for your applicaiton.
Just a thought:
I really don't see an edge either by NAS or SAN storage device without considering or understanding first the other entities of an Infrastructure.
I mean.. if your infra involved with low or high network performance. Or your servers maybe an entry-level, midrange, or high-end, this clearly will influence the performance of your storage device.
If you have at least a midrange server which has a fibre channel bus architecture(IO comm channels/network/host adapters) then it will best fit to use SAN. Because SAN fits or maximized with this. On the otherhand NAS will be most likely be suitable in an infra where communication/network high performance become a standard(using Gigabyte Ethernet network systems/fibre optics).