thread-index: Achu8e4EptS5cG0yRNycMv0FNr0jxg==
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
Message-ID: <47B41414.9030004@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:12:36 +0000
From: "Greg Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Tobias Brox" <tobias@nordicbet.com>
Cc: "Peter Koczan" <pjkoczan@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-performance" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Anyone using a SAN?
References: <4544e0330802130856t10582294lfa93bc91e234ed01@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080213210655.GL9596@mail.nordicbet.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080213210655.GL9596@mail.nordicbet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tobias Brox wrote:
> [Peter Koczan - Wed at 10:56:54AM -0600]
>   
> The consensus on this list seemed to be that running postgres on SAN is
> not cost efficiently - one would get better performance for a lower cost
> if the database host is connected directly to the disks - and also,
> buying the wrong SAN can cause quite some problems.
>   
That's true about SANs in general. You don't buy a SAN because it'll 
cost less than just buying the disks and a controller. You buy a SAN 
because it'll let you make managing it easier. The break-even point has 
more to do with how many servers you're able to put on the SAN and how 
often you need to do tricky backup and upgrade procedures than it 
doeswith the hardware.