Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
Geetz
Starting Member
11 Posts |
 Posted - 2004-03-30 : 13:23:43
|
| Hi Gurus,I've got a client who have just bought our application, they have 130+ users on a oltp system and 500+ external users (less intensive usage). They are now looking at purchasing hardware and have settled for a active/passive sql cluster with dual xeon servers and 4gb of ram. the only problem is that they are insisting on a SCSI Array storage instead of a SAN solution. I've explained to them that the kind of usage they are looking at deserves a san solution even if it is more expensive.. but being just a programmer i cannot claim to be any expert on the subject. is my objection valid , do you think a SCSI array will suffice the usage and if not then where exactly does the problem lie. The max size the database is expected to be is around 80-100 GB.any help is appreciatedTIA |
|
|
MuadDBA
628 Posts |
Posted - 2004-03-30 : 13:46:36
|
| Well, you know your application better than we do (I hope), and so you probably know just how intensive it is, however keep in mind that before the advent of SANs, people were using SCSI array storage for DBs of that size all the time. Tell them to get multiple RAID10 arrays, typically I would use one for data, one for backups, one for tlogs, and one for tempdb (and tempdb tlogs). More, smaller drives in the array will give you better performance than fewer large drives, so do that as well. |
 |
|
|
derrickleggett
Pointy Haired Yak DBA
4184 Posts |
Posted - 2004-03-30 : 14:32:51
|
| Why don't they consider fiber enclosures??? This can give them a much cheaper solution if they are not going to take advantage of the "SAN" features of a SAN anyway.MeanOldDBAderrickleggett@hotmail.comWhen life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCSI storage Vs SAN