Re: Database Storage
- From: "Jeremy Schneider" <jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Mir M. Mirhashimali" <mhyder@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:44:26 -0500
Well it sounds like you've made a pretty big investment in your NAS
solution. And maybe you made that investment as part of a strategy to
consolidate your storage. It would be very unfortunate if you couldn't
resolve your problems with the Titan and had to get another system for the
database. I agree with Mark that you really ought to press Bluearc for some
help and try to keep the system you have.
But regarding other solutions - a majority of the customers I've interacted
with are using SAN solutions for large-scale production databases. NAS
solutions like NetApp and HP Polyserve are definitely common as well but
personally I've seen more SAN products actually in the field. Some of the
traditional players are EMC, IBM, Sun, 3par, etc but there are a lot of
great new products on the market too.
Personally I'd recommend an FC or iSCSI based solution with ASM. It tends
to simplify things a lot and performs very well. Just my two cents and
maybe some other folks will chime in with differing opinions.
-Jeremy
On 1/16/08, Mir M. Mirhashimali <mhyder@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> No The database is fine. The back-end storage we are currently using has
> been so unstable that we had to shutdown the database several times this
> month. and couple times it just rebooted itself corrupting the database.
>
> We have a Titan storage solution from a company called Bluearc
> (www.bluearc.com). so i have been tasked to find out what other people
> are using as a storage solution and how stable it is. we have redundant
> servers to handle high availability (not RAC though) manual switchover
> in case primary server fails.
>
> Thanks
> Mir
>
> Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto: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
> > !DSPAM:59,478e53a7200748260017469!
>
--
Jeremy Schneider
Chicago, IL
http://www.ardentperf.com/category/technical
Other related posts:
