[olug] MAX_LUNS: Caveat about selling Linux for SAN to "the management"

[Bill Brush]

On 1/18/07, swanpoint at cox.net <swanpoint at cox.net> wrote:
> Reason for the small LUN are historical --- "because it's always been done that way here." It also fits "the workflow process" --- users get a database, say 32 GB to start, and then ask for incremental increases as data grows (in multiples of 4 GB).


Ok, maybe it's just me, but if a workflow comes up against a technical
limitation, I say change the workflow.  At one point maybe 32GB Luns
made sense, but with today's technology and disk sizes that's a poor
utilization of your disks.  Just my opinion there, but processes
always change with changes in technology, that's just a fact of life.
If it was me I'd make one big disk and put quotas on the directories
or something like that; because, having that many small disks is just
going to kill your disk performance.  If you don't believe me ask EMC
what they recommend for minimum disk size, and how many RAID stripes
you can have in a LUN before it starts degrading performance.

Bill