Re: Database Storage

  • From: "Jeremy Schneider" <jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: mhyder@xxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:57:31 -0500

Just curious, but what do you mean by "performing badly in terms of
availability (but not throughput)"?  Do you mean that the database is very
fast but crashes a lot?  You mentioned an active-passive cluster - is it
failing over?  If so, exactly how often?

Usually "high-availability" involves more than just the storage system.  Why
are you looking for a new storage system?  What do you expect from the new
storage system that your current system is lacking?  (BTW, what is your
current storage system?)

Just a few questions to get the gears turning, if you have a few moments.
:)  Just trying to understand what you're looking for!


On 1/14/08, Mir M. Mirhashimali <mhyder@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Oracle-L,
> I have been tasked to find what storage solutions is best for our
> databases. Our current storage solution had been performing very badly
> not in terms of through put but in terms off availability. We have both
> Oracle and SQL Server(2000 and 2005). I am interested in knowing what
> other people are using and what strategy they are following to make it
> high-availability. RAC is not an option for us. right now we have
> redundant servers and NFS mounts to our storage system. and similar
> setup for SQL Server. with a active-passive cluster connected to storage.
> thanks
> --
> Mir M. Mirhashimali
> Oracle Systems Manager
> Database Architecture, Enterprise Applications
> Rice University
> (713) 348 6365
> --

Jeremy Schneider
Chicago, IL

Other related posts: