----- Original Message ----- From: "Ozzie Sabina" ors@cimedia.com To: "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" sirbruce@ix.netcom.com; "Sims, Aaron" Aaron.Sims@netapp.com; toasters@mathworks.com Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Filer storage for databases, seriously? (Was: Re: NetApp ques tions)
+-- "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" sirbruce@ix.netcom.com once said: | Of course, with RAID 0+1, you're paying for twice as many disks. | For the same money, you could buy a second filer, and spread the | load, and get better performance for the same dollars. (And a better | MTBF).
Say huh? For the same money? Even having to buy twice the disks, you'd still most likely end up cheaper than a filer. If this isn't the case for you, I want in on that discount.
Depends on the amount of disk you are talking. Note that I didn't say you could buy a second duplicate filer, just that you could get a second one. Do the math and you'll come out on top.
There's no way you'd get two filers with X diskspace between them for anywhere near the price of some cheaper DAS with X diskspace, unless that DAS you're talking about is an EMC or something like that.
That's because the "some cheaper DAS with X diskspace" would not have compareable performance and RAID protection. If you cost out your DAS of comparable performance to a filer, but with twice the disk (for RAID 0+1), it will be more expensive.
Bruce