> > With the growing acceptance of SAN storage, (which is available for
> as
> > little as $5000 USD) the need for NFS/remote storage is quickly
> becoming
> > a thing of the past.
> >
>
> $5000 USD? A lot of money for us. And the disaster recovery features
> of SANs are NOT in-sync (as the shadows are).

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I meant that a SAN could be used in conjunction with local storage to
store either the primary DB or shadow DB file, thus the database would
be on 2 different disks.

If cost is an issue, then go out get an SATA controller and a modest
750GB drive (total cost $600 CDN retail) and use the new drive as local
storage for the shadow.

> And, BTW, in SANs the database performance will be faster?

Yes. My tests on our LAN using software based iSCSI initiators (no
special/custom HBA), disk access to the SAN (not a medium or high end
unit) performed much better than our RAID 5 SCSI server storage.

> Keep in mind that these
> topologies copy/replicate the files in binary mode, as a common ones,
> which is one of the most common causes of database corruption.

As I mentioned about, I meant that SAN could be used as the storage
location for the shadow. I didn't mean to suggest/imply anything about
local to SAN or SAN to SAN replication.


Sean