Message-ID: <4C869432.3020604@emolecules.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:36:18 -0700
From: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] - SAN/NAS/DAS - Need advises
References: <BLU0-SMTP210967FD95F5FDB70F62482B8710@phx.gbl>
	<89d324187ce4d7f05371a28b479db866@commandprompt.com>
	<AANLkTincJ+NaBPf4eUekE3pnXo96e2-VHQBRjy=CZKpj@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C868D3C.4050906@krogh.cc>
In-Reply-To: <4C868D3C.4050906@krogh.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 9/7/10 12:06 PM, Jesper Krogh wrote:
> On 2010-09-07 20:42, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> With the right supplier, you can plug in literally 100 hard drives to
>> a regular server with DAS and for a fraction of the cost of a SAN.
> Ok, recently I have compared prices a NexSan SASBeast with 42 15K SAS drives
> with a HP MDS600 with 15K SAS drives.
>
> The first is 8gbit Fibre Channel, the last is 3Gbit DAS SAS. The
> fibre channel version is about 20% more expensive pr TB.
>
> So of course it is a "fraction of the cost of a SAN", but it is a
> fairly small one.

Are you really comparing equal systems?  "8gbit Fibre Channel" means a single Fibre Channel shared by 42 disks, whereas "3GBit DAS SAS" means 42 3gbit channels running in parallel.  It seems like you'd really need some realistic benchmarks that emulate your actual server load before you'd know how these two systems compare.

Craig