Re: SAN vs Internal Disks - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tobias Brox
Subject Re: SAN vs Internal Disks
Date
Msg-id 20070907103341.GC20896@oppetid.no
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SAN vs Internal Disks  (Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>)
Responses Re: SAN vs Internal Disks  (Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>)
Re: SAN vs Internal Disks  (Matthew Schumacher <matt.s@aptalaska.net>)
Re: SAN vs Internal Disks  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Re: SAN vs Internal Disks  (david@lang.hm)
List pgsql-performance
We're also considering to install postgres on SAN - that is, my boss is
convinced this is the right way to go.

Advantages:

 1. Higher I/O (at least the salesman claims so)
 2. Easier to upgrade the disk capacity
 3. Easy to set up "warm standby" functionality.  (Then again, if the
 postgres server fails miserably, it's likely to be due to a disk
 crash).

Also, my boss states that "all big enterprises uses SAN nowadays".

Disadvantages:

 1. Risky?  One gets the impression that there are frequent problems
 with data integrity when reading some of the posts in this thread.

 2. Expensive

 3. "Single point of failure" ... but that you have either it's a SAN or
 a local disk, one will anyway need good backup systems (and eventually
 "warm standby"-servers running from physically separated disks).

 4. More complex setup?

 5. If there are several hosts with write permission towards the same
 disk, I can imagine the risks being higher for data integrity
 breakages.  Particularly, I can imagine that if two postgres instances
 is started up towards the same disk (due to some sysadmin mistake), it
 could be disasterous.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Sven Geisler
Date:
Subject: Re: utilising multi-cpu/core machines?
Next
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: DRBD and Postgres: how to improve the perfomance?