Subject: Re: File Systems Compared
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
Cc: Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>, Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <C19C2E17.14DD1%llonergan@greenplum.com>
References: <C19C2E17.14DD1%llonergan@greenplum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:34:38 -0800
Message-Id: <1165422878.20753.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> As you suggest, database replication provides one of those features, and
> Solaris ZFS has many of the data management features found in high end SANs.
> Perhaps we can get the best of both?
> 
> In the end, I think SAN vs. server storage is a religious battle.

I agree. I have many people that want to purchase a SAN because someone
told them that is what they need... Yet they can spend 20% of the cost
on two external arrays and get incredible performance...

We are seeing great numbers from the following config:

(2) HP MS 30s (loaded) dual bus
(2) HP 6402, one connected to each MSA.

The performance for the money is incredible.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


> 
> - Luke
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> 
-- 

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate