| What type of disk do you use? [message #459550] |
Mon, 07 June 2010 00:01  |
rleishman
Messages: 3728
Registered: October 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In this thread I've been seeking help to benchmark Nested Loops joins.
One comment from @coleing was that placing Oracle data files on NFS mounts was a sub-optimal solution.
I'm a developer, not an infrastructure/network engineer, so am ignorant of this stuff. What are the options?
- Mounting the disk directly on the box might be tricky because the server has limited disk slots.
- So if it is going to be non-resident disk, what are the alternatives to NFS? I've heard of SAN, but have also heard that it can be prohibitively expensive.
What do you guys use for your multi-terabyte DBs?
Ross Leishman
|
|
|
|
| Re: What type of disk do you use? [message #459584 is a reply to message #459550] |
Mon, 07 June 2010 05:41  |
ThomasG
Messages: 3211
Registered: April 2005
Location: Heilbronn, Germany
|
Senior Member |
|
|
From my experience the "NFS no-no" was definitely true in the days of slower networks, where Ethernet was still mostly 100Mbit but Fibre channel SANs were already on Gigabit or even 10Gb.
These days a lot of SANs use iSCSI anyway, so there is not *much* difference any more performance-wise between a "real" SAN and NFS.
Here is a paper with a comparison, including performance benchmarks, "5.2 TPCC and TPCH Results" seem to be the most relevant to databases.
We have a few of our "smaller" databases running with NFS storage, and from what I see there is not much difference between a 1Gb connected SAN and a mounted NFS partition with a dedicated 1Gb network link. So far we only had performance problems when something else was hammering the NFS server or the network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] 
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
