From: Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] - SAN/NAS/DAS - Need advises
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 06:58:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4C871802.7040203@krogh.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik=8AEoHBs45HQV54iDU83mjvZCQCorBavfMA=B@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU0-SMTP210967FD95F5FDB70F62482B8710@phx.gbl>
<89d324187ce4d7f05371a28b479db866@commandprompt.com>
<AANLkTincJ+NaBPf4eUekE3pnXo96e2-VHQBRjy=CZKpj@mail.gmail.com>
<4C868D3C.4050906@krogh.cc>
<4C869432.3020604@emolecules.com>
<AANLkTik=8AEoHBs45HQV54iDU83mjvZCQCorBavfMA=B@mail.gmail.com>
On 2010-09-07 22:47, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> 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.
>>
> Well, not usually. Most SAS DAS systems use a single multi-lane cable
> that gives you 4x3GB channels, etc.
>
> However, unless you're doing little than sequentially scanned reports
> of a large size being read, the difference between 8gb and 3gb is not
> going to matter. There are lots of very hard working transactional
> databases that are lucky to see more than 20 or 40 megabytes a second
> getting trasnferred spread out over 30 or 40 drives.
>
> What really matters here is if the 8gb SAN is as fast as or faster
> than the DAS setup. For most people measuring the speed of the
> interface is a lot like the famous Tom Lane quote about benchmarking
> jet fighters versus airliners by measuring the amount of runway they
> need.
>
If you can get 10k tps on the SAN and 10k tps on the DAS
> So to the OP, what are hoping to get from the SAN that you won't get
> from the DAS? Also, how reliable are these two in comparison to each
> other is kinda of important. Speed of the interface isn't a real big
> deal for a database server Size of the battery backed cache in each
> one is And how each survives the power plug pull test. If your SAN
> salesman balks at a power on test you don't have to run it, you'll
> know.
>
All wise words, that I can acknowledge with "hands on" experience.
I was basically only reacting to the "you can do the choice based
on cost alone.. DAS is soo-much-cheaper". In the comparison, I get
an equal amount of disks with same characteristica, in the same
raid-configuration. 1-2GB Battery backed cache on each. So on
paper, I think the systems are directly comparable. In the real
world it is more about "feelings" since I never get to benchmark both of
them.
Jesper
--
Jesper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: jesper@krogh.cc, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, craig_james@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] - SAN/NAS/DAS - Need advises
In-Reply-To: <4C871802.7040203@krogh.cc>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox