Faeandar
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:16 am Post subject:
Re: NetApp VS EMC |
|
|
On 29 Jul 2005 08:25:51 -0700, "boatgeek" <dougvibbert@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | The Clariion speed is roughly the speed of the netapp FAS960 (don't put
anything on them asking for more than 100 GBs/sec total or around"
50-60k IOs/sec). Clariions are midtier storage in my mind vs the DMX.
We have netapps, clariions, hitachis and symms. We have around 250
oracle databases on 6 pairs of netapp filers. It's much easier to give
space to on the netapp, much easier. As to speed, the EMC DMX 2000
and 3000 is FAR greater speed than netapp, but frankly two of our
filers are putting around 120 GBs/Sec between them. The rest of our
entire switch infrastructure with 4 EMC SANs and 4 Hitachi SANs is
doing around 20 GBs/sec. The reason is the DBAs never know what the
throughput is going to be. The speed debate is often silly. DBAs,
or baby faced consultants with no realworld experience ask for the
fastest thing possible and run everyones budget into the ground. It's
like saying you want to commute from DC to NY and therefore if you had
a ferrari you could make the trip as fast as possible. When in fact,
the guy with the diesel jetta will be right behind you every step of
the way at a tenth of the cost because of traffic lights, and speed
limits and all sorts of real world things that stop performance for
almost ever touching the sky high limits of a DMX. So if you know you
have something that really really cranks out data, then definitely go
to a high end SAN like a DMX, but be prepared to pay 4 times the cost
of the netapp and spend 5 times as long trying to get it going.
|
I think that was a great summation, I'm gonna have to remember the NY
trip explanation.
For carmellomcc I can only say this; as I mentioned previously only
about 5% of *ALL* databases need transaction performance beyond what
NAS can do. So if you run in that 5% then by all means, get block
access with an HDS or EMC or IBM. But if you're like the other 95%
NAS has all the power you'll need *plus* features and functions and
manageability you will not find with current block access arrays.
"What type of Oracle Database is it? If you do allot of Random Read
you will need a SAN based solution. I have implemented a ton of raq
clusters and nothing in the end is faster then SAN."
Several items to address there.
1) 10G RAC (I assume 'raq' was a typo on your part) is what we've
implemented. We do random reads, but the definition of "alot" is
variable. The simple fact is most people who think they do alot of
random access really don't.
2) I never said NAS was faster than SAN, merely that the vast majority
of db's out there don't need the blazing performance they think they
do.
3) implementing RAC also adds overhead with a CFS on SAN. With NAS
you don't have any of that overhead or complexity. It's built into
the protocol.
A side note, if the db server is under heavy load from memory and cpu
usage NAS can actually be faster than SAN or DAS. The reason is that
the server only makes a single call to the driver for data, the actual
IO functions are offloaded to the NAS host. And when dealing with
db's under 6GB it's essentially a memory to memory transfer.
Several publicly available tests have been done showing that NFS, as a
protocol, is not slower than fiber channel. It's mostly the overhead
of ethernet, 70% use v. 90%.
~F |
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in