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