Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Peripheral Links

Header And Logo

PostgreSQL
| The world's most advanced open source database.

Site Navigation

Search for
  Advanced Search

Re: File Systems Compared


  • From: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
  • To: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
  • Cc: "Brian Hurt" <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, "Brian Wipf" <brian(at)clickspace(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
  • Subject: Re: File Systems Compared
  • Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:12:24 -0500
  • Message-id: <b42b73150612061212l7111308bsbbddbd253927e232(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>

On 12/6/06, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> wrote:
People buy SANs for interesting reasons, some of them having to do with the
manageability features of high end SANs.  I've heard it said in those cases
that "performance doesn't matter much".

There is movement in the industry right now away form tape systems to
managed disk storage for backups and data retention.  In these cases
performance requirements are not very high -- and a single server can
manage a huge amount of storage.  In theory, you can do the same thing
attached via sas expanders but fc networking is imo more flexible and
scalable.

The manageability features of SANs are a mixed bag and decidedly
overrated but they have a their place, imo.

merlin



Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Privacy Policy | PostgreSQL Archives hosted by Command Prompt, Inc. | Designed by tinysofa
Copyright © 1996 – 2008 PostgreSQL Global Development Group