| 1 |
On 12/06/2013 16:20, Nick Khamis wrote: |
| 2 |
> It was my understanding that SAN whether implemented using iSCSI |
| 3 |
> or Fibre was essentially susceptible to the same type |
| 4 |
> of faults that lead to whatever failures? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Old cynic speaking here: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Yes, they both have the same weak point: humans. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
In my experience the only storage technology that ever let me down badly |
| 11 |
was a decrepit Arena locally-attached badly designed POS. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The humans that *run* the storage failed me many times. The SAN never |
| 14 |
deleted a LUN, the humans did - more than once. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If you are assessing risk, do keep that one in mind. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Other than that, no storage technology is really inherently better than |
| 19 |
any other, some are just better suited to what you need and have budget for. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 24 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives