 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Enterprise environment are moving more and more towards service oriented functional groups.  SAN as a service, database as a service, etc.  So SAN guys are saying DBAs shouldn&#8217;t worry about this, they use gigantic arrays with 100&#8242;s of spindles, they guarantee performance, etc.  What are your thoughts on this?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/enterprise-environment-are-moving-more-and-more-towards-service-oriented-functional-groups-san-as-a-service-database-as-a-service-etc-so-san-guys-are-saying-dbas-shouldnt-worry-about-this-the/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/enterprise-environment-are-moving-more-and-more-towards-service-oriented-functional-groups-san-as-a-service-database-as-a-service-etc-so-san-guys-are-saying-dbas-shouldnt-worry-about-this-the/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 13:39:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Toshana</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/enterprise-environment-are-moving-more-and-more-towards-service-oriented-functional-groups-san-as-a-service-database-as-a-service-etc-so-san-guys-are-saying-dbas-shouldnt-worry-about-this-the/#comment-1028</link>
		<dc:creator>Toshana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2011 14:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/enterprise-environment-are-moving-more-and-more-towards-service-oriented-functional-groups-san-as-a-service-database-as-a-service-etc-so-san-guys-are-saying-dbas-shouldnt-worry-about-this-the/#comment-1028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’m in 100% agreement with “mrdenny” backed by a real world example.

We recently migrated some production SQL server form EMC storage to a HDS AMS 2500.  HDS folks sword up and down that DP Pools filled with a lot of spindles would out preform standard practices.  We made some nice sized DP Pools consisting of Raid 5 (4+1) groups.  Well it turns out a DP Pool lacks simultaneous writes.  Say you have 10 Raid 5 groups consisting of (4+1) when the storage array writes to disk it writes in a (32 MB virtual page) on one of the Raid groups once it fills the 32MB virtual page it then moves on to a new 32 MB virtual page on another Raid group.  So it basically round-robins raid groups in 32MB virtual page files.  

I can safely say we are now in the process of moving our systems off the DP Pools and back to a new EMC array with standard practices of separate spindles for drives. 

Nick]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’m in 100% agreement with “mrdenny” backed by a real world example.</p>
<p>We recently migrated some production SQL server form EMC storage to a HDS AMS 2500.  HDS folks sword up and down that DP Pools filled with a lot of spindles would out preform standard practices.  We made some nice sized DP Pools consisting of Raid 5 (4+1) groups.  Well it turns out a DP Pool lacks simultaneous writes.  Say you have 10 Raid 5 groups consisting of (4+1) when the storage array writes to disk it writes in a (32 MB virtual page) on one of the Raid groups once it fills the 32MB virtual page it then moves on to a new 32 MB virtual page on another Raid group.  So it basically round-robins raid groups in 32MB virtual page files.  </p>
<p>I can safely say we are now in the process of moving our systems off the DP Pools and back to a new EMC array with standard practices of separate spindles for drives. </p>
<p>Nick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
