Re: And diseases of the blood!
- From: "Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:21:51 -0700
"Walter Ellena" <WalterEllena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:69CD920A-BD9D-4795-B007-784E55BD5E07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> So, basically. If that shared storage goes bye bye, then we are cooked,
> done. . . the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater?
SANs are much more redundant than other devices with redundant power,
redundant backplanes, redundant power, etc... SAN failures are incredibly
rare.
However, as with all risks, the cost of mitigation of the risk must be
weighed against the cost of the risk occurring and they need to then be
weighed against each other.
So, find out what the failure rates are of a SAN device and see if the costs
of having redundant, geographically separated, SAN devices which are
constantly replicated are worth the mitigation they provide.
--
Russ Kaufmann
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Website
http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp - Blog
.
- References:
- Re: And diseases of the blood!
- From: Walter Ellena
- Re: And diseases of the blood!
- Prev by Date: Windows 2003 Cluster Troubleshooting
- Next by Date: Re: Problem with windows cluster.
- Previous by thread: Re: And diseases of the blood!
- Next by thread: Re: And diseases of the blood!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|