<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>San on Evan Hoffman</title><link>https://evan.wtf/tags/san/</link><description>Recent content in San on Evan Hoffman</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><copyright>Evan Hoffman</copyright><lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:46:40 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://evan.wtf/tags/san/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Using WAL archiving &amp; Compellent snapshots for PostgreSQL backups</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2011/07/13/using-wal-archiving-compellent-snapshots-for-postgresql-backups/</link><pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:46:40 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2011/07/13/using-wal-archiving-compellent-snapshots-for-postgresql-backups/</guid><description>Changing my Postgres DB backup strategy from nightly &lt;code&gt;pg_dump&lt;/code&gt;s to WAL archiving with SAN snapshots.</description></item><item><title>Compellent Doesn't Suck</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2010/10/14/compellent-doesnt-suck-2/</link><pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:28:59 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2010/10/14/compellent-doesnt-suck-2/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I noticed a bunch of people landing on this site by searching for &amp;ldquo;compellent sucks.&amp;rdquo; I just want to avoid any confusion: Compellent doesn&amp;rsquo;t suck. Now that the pain of spending the money to expand our Compellent SAN is in the past, I am back to being in love with the product. The only gripe I&amp;rsquo;ve really ever had with Compellent is the price, and as Ben Franklin said:&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Compellent Doesn't Suck</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2010/10/14/compellent-doesnt-suck/</link><pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:28:59 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2010/10/14/compellent-doesnt-suck/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I noticed a bunch of people landing on this site by searching for &amp;ldquo;compellent sucks.&amp;rdquo; I just want to avoid any confusion: Compellent doesn&amp;rsquo;t suck. Now that the pain of spending the money to expand our Compellent SAN is in the past, I am back to being in love with the product. The only gripe I&amp;rsquo;ve really ever had with Compellent is the price, and as Ben Franklin said:&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>The bright side of Compellent</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2010/09/22/the-bright-side-of-compellent/</link><pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:07:46 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2010/09/22/the-bright-side-of-compellent/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Since I was bemoaning Compellent&amp;rsquo;s pricing recently I figured it would be unfair of me not to highlight the upside. Their tagline is (or was when we purchased it) &amp;ldquo;The only SAN so sophisticated it&amp;rsquo;s simple.&amp;rdquo; While I can&amp;rsquo;t say whether they&amp;rsquo;re the ONLY one, the idea is definitely true. This is the first SAN I&amp;rsquo;ve ever used, and aside from the learning curve for iSCSI itself (targets, spinup delay, etc.) it&amp;rsquo;s totally simple and intuitive. Create LUNs, map them to servers. Don&amp;rsquo;t worry about things like RAID levels or hot disks. We&amp;rsquo;re into our second year with Compellent and it&amp;rsquo;s definitely lived up to its promise of simplicity.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Oh, Compellent... again with the disk prices.</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2010/08/25/oh-compellent-again-with-the-disk-prices/</link><pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:57:04 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2010/08/25/oh-compellent-again-with-the-disk-prices/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Time to expand the SAN again.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;I planned and budgeted for this this year but it still pisses me off. Look, I realize these guys have to make money, but the bottom line is they&amp;rsquo;re charging over $1.40/GB for SATA storage. There are 7200 RPM 2TB SATA drives on &lt;a href="http://amzn.com/B002D5DWZU?tag=evanhoffmasho-20"&gt;Amazon&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145298"&gt;Newegg&lt;/a&gt; ranging in price from $130 to $220. That&amp;rsquo;s as low as $0.065/GB. There was even a 2TB WD &amp;ldquo;Green&amp;rdquo; drive (sub-7200 RPM, I think 5900 RPM) &lt;a href="http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/38317"&gt;on Slickdeals&lt;/a&gt; today for $99. That&amp;rsquo;s 5 cents per gig.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>The SAN Scam</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2009/04/03/the-san-scam/</link><pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:03:11 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2009/04/03/the-san-scam/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;It&amp;rsquo;s time to buy some more disks for the SAN we have at work. The SAN is made by &lt;a href="http://www.compellent.com/"&gt;Compellent&lt;/a&gt; and we&amp;rsquo;ve had it for a year and it&amp;rsquo;s been great. One of the selling points was the ability to add disks however we wanted - one at a time is possible, which apparently isn&amp;rsquo;t the case with other SAN products. The one we looked at from LeftHand expanded by purchasing entire nodes, so the incremental cost was pretty high. Compellent seemed to have a higher initial cost but cheaper incrementally.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>