|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > January 2006 > snap servers and suitability for oracle databases
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
snap servers and suitability for oracle databases
|
|
| cmappy@hotmail.com 2006-01-04, 7:54 am |
| hi
I'm looking at purchasing a snap server 18000, but i'm getting
conflicting messages with regards to its suitability for providing
oracle storage.
I'd have another machine with the oracle installation connecting to the
storage either iscsi or nfs . Has anyone used any of the snap range for
oracle databases ? I don't need super high perfornance, just a decent
environment for development.
Elaine
| |
| Faeandar 2006-01-04, 8:46 pm |
| On 4 Jan 2006 04:23:16 -0800, cmappy@hotmail.com wrote:
>hi
>I'm looking at purchasing a snap server 18000, but i'm getting
>conflicting messages with regards to its suitability for providing
>oracle storage.
>I'd have another machine with the oracle installation connecting to the
>storage either iscsi or nfs . Has anyone used any of the snap range for
>oracle databases ? I don't need super high perfornance, just a decent
>environment for development.
>Elaine
Just looking at the specs briefly it looks like a great solution for
what you describe. In fact, that model may even be overkill and you
could feasibly drop down a model or two to save money. Depends on
your budget and desire I guess.
Personally I would suggest using NFS as your transport for Oracle
rather than iSCSI. We've used it for Oracle on NetApp and it works
very well. Failover is a breeze and the performance is very good,
more than enough for 90% of the transaction types out there.
~F
| |
| cmappy@hotmail.com 2006-01-05, 5:50 pm |
| hi
Thanks for the input. Aim high, then accept lower. ;)
Elaine
Faeandar wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2006 04:23:16 -0800, cmappy@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Just looking at the specs briefly it looks like a great solution for
> what you describe. In fact, that model may even be overkill and you
> could feasibly drop down a model or two to save money. Depends on
> your budget and desire I guess.
>
> Personally I would suggest using NFS as your transport for Oracle
> rather than iSCSI. We've used it for Oracle on NetApp and it works
> very well. Failover is a breeze and the performance is very good,
> more than enough for 90% of the transaction types out there.
>
> ~F
|
|
|
|
|