From: Jolet, John (John.Jolet@MISYSHEALTHCARE.COM)
Date: Mon Jun 24 2002 - 14:28:21 EDT
we're using a raid 10+1 configuration quite successfully for our informix
tablespaces.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent D'Antonio [mailto:Vincent.D'Antonio@BISYS.COM]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:16 PM
To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: SAN question
tempdb is about 20GB, HDS when asked didn't say anything about checks to
prevent this from happening, but did say that raid0+1 most likely will not
use any cache, cache is used most by raid5 config's.
Vince
*******PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESS AND PHONE************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Vincent D'Antonio
Unix Systems Engineer
Bisys Retirement Services
200 Dryden Road
Dresher, PA 19025
phone: 215-648-8284
fax: 215-648-4888
e-mail: Vincent.D'Antonio@bisys.com
Bill Verzal
<Bill_Verzal@B To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
CBSIL.COM> cc:
Sent by: IBM Subject: Re: SAN question
AIX Discussion
List
<aix-l@Princet
on.EDU>
06/24/2002
01:53 PM
Please respond
to IBM AIX
Discussion
List
Usually the HDS/EMC/ESS boxes have checks and balances built into them to
protect against this. Also, if someone does a 64GB query, I think they'll
blow the cursor anyway. Does your DBA have 64GB of temp data space to
store / sort the query when it comes back ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Bill Verzal
Technical Consultant
Forbes Technical Consulting
(312) 653-3684
bill_verzal@bcbsil.com
"Vincent D'Antonio"
<Vincent.D'Antonio@ To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
BISYS.COM> cc:
Sent by: IBM AIX Subject: Re: SAN question
Discussion List
<aix-l@Princeton.ED
U>
06/24/2002 12:40 PM
Please respond to
IBM AIX Discussion
List
Simon,
thanks for the info, so that I understand, do you have a pro DB, in the
same or will have in the same SAN as a dev DB or a qa DB? My DBA is the
problem in that the HDS 9980 has up to 64GB and by year end 128GB of cache.
He is very worried that a bad query on dev or test will use up the cache
and pro will suffer.
I was looking to use HDS 4D X 4D raid0+1 across both acs's and about 600GB
of disk just for pro. the dev, test, and qa would all be raid5 using same
size of 600GB. the cache is 8GB that we were going to get. I understand
wanting to get pro by itself but that is starting to be old school way of
thinking, with the size of this HDS I dont think we would ever use the
whole capacity which is 1028 drives (36GB or 72GB-144GB by year end), 4
acs's, 32 direct attached fibre ports (64 by year end), 64GB of cache
(128GB by year end), this is just a BIG box.
any thoughts? all are welcome.
thanks
Vince
*******PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESS AND PHONE************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Vincent D'Antonio
Unix Systems Engineer
Bisys Retirement Services
200 Dryden Road
Dresher, PA 19025
phone: 215-648-8284
fax: 215-648-4888
e-mail: Vincent.D'Antonio@bisys.com
"Green, Simon"
<SGreen@KRAFTE To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
UROPE.COM> cc:
Sent by: IBM Subject: Re: SAN question
AIX Discussion
List
<aix-l@Princet
on.EDU>
06/24/2002
12:24 PM
Please respond
to IBM AIX
Discussion
List
At our largest site we're in transition at the moment, with some SAN, (ESS,
mostly; some HDS, I think) and some SSA. The target, though is a single
SAN, with ESS and tape libraries attached to it, available to all systems,
(including Windows, although I think that'll just be the tape libraries).
Not every server will actually be attached to the SAN: some - like SAP
Application instances - don't need external storage.
Other sites aren't large enough to justify the cost of SAN, or have too
large an existing investment in SSA. (Starting from scratch, we'd get a
Shark, but the cost of replacing a few TB of SSA is prohibitive.)
It seems sensible if you're going to have a SAN that you have one big one
rather than several small ones and don't use non-SAN hardware. You avoid
duplication of hardware, which can reduce costs. Also, I think that
administration is simpler when everything is in one place. Things like SSA
are easier to administer in principle, but can become quite complicated
IME.
Simon Green
Philip Morris ITSC Europe
AIX-L Archive at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=aix-l&r=1&w=2
AIX FAQ at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/aix-faq/
N.B. Unsolicited email from vendors will seldom be appreciated.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent D'Antonio [mailto:Vincent.D'Antonio@BISYS.COM]
> Sent: 24 June 2002 16:21
> To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
> Subject: SAN question
>
>
> good day AIX'ers,
> been having a discussion on a SAN here, looking to get HDS 9980 in. I
> would like to put all systems to the SAN. We run sybase as
> our DB. the
> question I have is:
>
> does anyone have a SAN where all your systems (pro, dev,
> test....) are in a
> central SAN or are you split up one SAN for pro and one for everything
> else? If you broke pro out did you use a SAN or something
> cheaper (SSA)
> and easier for administration?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 22:16:00 EDT