RE: Solid State Disks for Databases
- From: "Goulet, Dick" <DGoulet@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:32:41 -0400
Niall,
That's 72GB of usable mirrored disk, which really comes to something
like 150GB. And yes, EMC is expensive.
_____
From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:53 PM
To: Goulet, Dick
Cc: hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Oracle-L
Subject: Re: Solid State Disks for Databases
On 9/27/05, Goulet, Dick <DGoulet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hemant,
Yes they appear to be much faster than normal disks, but
they
are also substantially, like a factor of 3 or 4 times, more
expensive as
well. We use EMC Symetrix systems and right now we can get 72GB
mirrored
for about $5,000. Soliddata's E75 is roughly the same price and
only
has 2GB of space.
See Cary's excellent, as usual, post on not spending money where it
makes almost no difference.
Where I suspect a number of systems may benefit is in alleviating the
redo bottleneck. (This is of course detectable by looking in the right
place). redo is often a bottleneck on heavy transactional systems
(especially those that have more transactions than they should, and ssd
for redo and maybe archives *might* help.
ps. $5000 for 72gb seems to come from a vendor that sells Redundant
Arrays of Inordinately expensive Disks. Is the performance and
reliability really better than say http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/ ?
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
Other related posts:
