RE: RAC in NAS

  • From: "Matthew Zito" <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:27:21 -0400

My point was simply that pure performance is often not the most
important component (or at least SHOULDN'T be the most important
component for many environments), and that NAS removes the complexity of
adding a CFS.  After I sent it, I realized it was a little ambiguous,
but I was writing it in the midst of two conversations and planning my
day. :)

Thanks,
Matt 

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kevin Closson
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:20 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: RAC in NAS

 
         
        - NAS offers a number of usability enhancements over SAN in RAC
environments, notably the fact that NFS is just baked into Linux and
removes the need for a CFS
        - SAN is generally faster, IO for IO, than NAS. 


...how can you say that NFS removes the need for CFS and then come out
and say that SAN is faster than NAS. By your own assertion, CFS-on-SAN
is therefore faster than NFS-on-NAS so what "removes the need" again? 

I know the choice of SAN or NAS is much more than speeds and feeds, but
casually dismissing CFS for the sake of NFS is a bit of a stretch I
feel.




--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


Other related posts: