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!
-Jeremy
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
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
--
Jeremy Schneider
Chicago, IL
http://www.ardentperf.com/category/technical
Other related posts:
