what is the best STORAGE solution for ORACLE db – SAN or NAS ?

pts.
Tags:
Linux servers
NAS
Oracle 10g
Oracle 9i
SAN
one of my project is very critical for the client . the application will run in 10 different sites . the infrastructure of each site will be : 4 linux servers (2 for ORACLE DB , 2 for websphere) + 1 linux/win server for backup software + DB oracle (~100GB) + storage. i have a very good experience in implemntation of an ORACLE on SAN .my partner want to install an ORACLE on NAS . i think NAS is not mature yet for ORACLE DB in 7*24*365 project. i want to get information that help us to get the right decision. thank you

Answer Wiki

Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.

It depends upon the NAS solution and how you handle failover. Oracle themselves run some large databases on NetApps. I wouldn’t necessarily head to the local computer store and get cheap switches, cheap NAS, and cheap server and expect it to work reliably.

Discuss This Question: 4  Replies

 
There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.
Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.
Send me notifications when members answer or reply to this question.

REGISTER or login:

Forgot Password?
By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy
  • Tuple9i
    I personally would stay with SAN at this time. Especially since you are running on a UNIX based O/S. NAS can be a bit tricky with failovers (as mentioned earlier). I currently am on an AIX cluster with ESS, SSA and NFS storage mix, with a little over 600 Gbytes. I use HACMP failover for the hardware and Rman/TSM for backup/recovery (although I also have a redundant hot online backup to LTO that I prefer to Rman).
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • Antila
    I think there are more aspects to it as such. No doupt that NAS systems from for instance NetApps is proven technology, but as said there are many players in this game and most of them are as I see it not serious. What you need to consider is also the network throughput which you would like to obtain. If you run a "classic" NAS, meaning one simply attached to your 100Mb ethernet, you will not get a high performing environment. Then what you can do is fiber attach your NAS box which will improve on your performance, but then why not go for a full pull and go for SAN and get that extra performance ?
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • FerencMantfeld
    IMO, Antila has hit in nail on the head. It depends on your need for performance, scalability and concurrency. If you have hundreds or thousands of concurrent users (not all active in the DB simultaneously, but connected nonetheless) and they hammering the living daylights out of it with OLTP type transactions, both SAN and NAS are poor performers as compared to directly attached storage, but the redeployment options for both NAS and SAN provide advantages over DASD. The advantage to SAN is that it does not share the network bandwidth with everything else out there, the storage has its own network and subnet. NAS has been around in various forms for many years (NFS, Samba-type shares), SAN is now mature enough. Just by way of example, on one Siebel project where the DB was only 200 GB, there were 2,000 + concurrent users. We initially deployed on IBM shark SAN, but my initial investigations showed it would never be enough. sure enough, the shark was shared between 20 other hosts, and the amount of network bandwidth it gave across a 12 TB system was proportional to the size of the DB volumes, in other words, nothing! Once my suggestion to go with Directly Attached EMC FC system was seconded by every techo who saw the analysis, we were in a state to continue, before that, we could not load more than about 400 of the 2,000 users on, the IO waits were just killing the system (Sun Fire 6800 clustered pair with asych direct IO with 12 CPU's per box). As soon as we switched to direcly atached EMC (expensive, as we were only using a total of just over 600 GB (3 BCV mirrors or 200 GB each) out of a 4 TB smallish EMC box. But the performance was there. The Shark SAN was redeployed into DEV & SIT where performance concurrency was not at such a premium. My 2 cents worth. Regards: Ferenc Mantfeld CEO: www.seemoredata.com
    0 pointsBadges:
    report
  • DonRitchey
    Another alternative for consideration is to use NAS, but on its own private local networks. This way you can evaluate a less expensive, but less capabable system during development, but still retain the ability to migreate to SAN later if the NAS does not perform well enough. The key to this alternative is to set up multiple LAN NICs on each server, one or two of which are connected to the LAN or LANs that support the NAS (depending on whether your application requires no single point of failure). Only the Oracle servers and the NAS servers (which may also be redundant, depending on requirements) would access these private LAN segments, which can be looked upon as a lower performance version of a SAN. In this situation, there are a spectrum of solutions that may be right, depending on the performance and cost requirements on your project. Best wishes, Don
    0 pointsBadges:
    report

Forgot Password

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an e-mail containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:

To follow this tag...

There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.

REGISTER or login:

Forgot Password?
By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Thanks! We'll email you when relevant content is added and updated.

Following