Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8DFF2E0062 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:55:07 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69046-08 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:54:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929152E005E for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:55:00 -0400 (AST) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id f5so833829nfh.23 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:54:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.182.17 with SMTP id e17mr13423322huf.62.1203515698388; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:54:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?92.65.199.138? ( [92.65.199.138]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g12sm19210221nfb.27.2008.02.20.05.54.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:54:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Anyone using a SAN? From: "C." =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bergstr=F6m?= To: pgsql-performance In-Reply-To: References: <4544e0330802130856t10582294lfa93bc91e234ed01@mail.gmail.com> <20080213210655.GL9596@mail.nordicbet.com> <47B41414.9030004@enterprisedb.com> <4544e0330802181344q2d98560du6bd4e481a9c9439f@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:52:42 +0100 Message-Id: <1203515562.6611.113.camel@chaos> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200802/245 X-Sequence-Number: 28787 On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 13:41 +0000, Matthew wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Peter Koczan wrote: > > One of the other things I was interested in was the "hidden costs" of > > a SAN. For instance, we'd probably have to invest in more UPS capacity > > to protect our data. Are there any other similar points that people > > don't initially consider regarding a SAN? > > You may well find that the hardware required in each machine to access the > SAN (fibrechannel cards, etc) and switches are way more expensive than > just shoving a cheap hard drive in each machine. Hard drives are > mass-produced, and remarkably cheap for what they do. SAN hardware is > specialist, and expensive. Can be, but may I point to a recent posting on Beowulf ml [1] and the article it references [2] Showing that the per node price of SDR IB has come down far enough to in some cases compete with GigE. ymmv, but I'm in the planning phase for a massive storage system and it's something we're looking into. Just thought I'd share Success! ./C [1] http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.beowulf.org/archive/2008-January/020538.html [2] http://www.clustermonkey.net/content/view/222/1/