Best practice for SQL databases...

[jaztek]

We are looking at different solutions. What is a better option for the sql database enviroment, fibre-channel san or directly attached scsi array off of a server..

We are looking at Compellent's product, I like the idea of the automated tier storage...

Any recommendations would be great.. I have my own thought on this, but wanted more input...

Thanks!

 

[RMGBELGIUM]

it all depends how much you want to invest ...
central storage has more redundancy ,is easily managed,but costs more.Iscsi is little bit slower dan FCP,gives some overhead on the host, but is cheaper to implement, as it can use the existing IP infrastructure.FC you will need to buy FC switches, HBA's for your hosts , so the cost will rise...

rgds,

R.

 

[jaztek]

Sounds good. But for performance, which is the best one... I'm getting people telling me direct attached for disk performance is the way to go, but I would like to house all the data in a SAN, with central management....

 

[RMGBELGIUM]

again, it all depends on your storage controller
If you have a high end storage controller with 4 Gbit Fiberchannel,large amount of disks, your performance will outclass the DAS.If however you are talking about little disks,lowend controller,then you are perhaps best with DAS performance wise.But the benefits of SAN over DAS are in function of maintenance and managebility huge.With central storages you can easiliy expand,swap disks,...

Hope this makes it all a little clearer ...

rgds,

R.