>>>Even if such access patterns are less than likely, it's >>>still important to know how storage responds in worst case >>>scenarios. Cache on the SAN/NAS is not a bad thing. I >>>can't think of a situation where it would *degrade* >>>performance merely by its presence. I've done a lot of benchmarking on systems configured with over 1000 disk drives and believe me, caching data that will never be revisted does not boost performance. Think FTS. I have used arrays that allow you to completely disable cache and doing so on the tables that sustain scans was often a performance boost. Mileage varies. >>>We've had a NetApp with rather fast disk and huge cache. >>>Burst performance indeed can be good. But, the thing has >>>effectively single gigabit fiber backbone and a single and >>>heavily burdened storage processor that renders it incapable >>>of sustaining more than maybe sixty (60) megabytes/sec That is because it is a single headed NAS. You need to see HP's story with the Enterprise File Server Clustered Gateway. Supports 16 active:active heads with no SPOF. ftp://ftp.compaq.com/pub/products/storageworks/efs/4AA0-0283ENW.pdf Besides, it's OEMed PolyServe :-) -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l