Both systems are fine, but it would really help if you tell what you intend
to use them for. Having snapshot is great, but if you're not going to use it
then it's not a gating factor. Will the system hold databases or video
streams? Big difference... Tell us what you are planning to do with the
system, maybe we can help you better.

Money-wise, 250$ difference is no difference at all. You probably need a
consultant to set some of this up, the difference is equal to offering him a
coffee break..

Rob

Rob , thank you for your reply. We intend to consolidate every of our
data storage requirement into this box. Email (exchange databases),
NAS head attaching to it for File level access, microscope pictures
which are large(typically 100MB-1GB) for analysis research on Nano
materials etc. Pictures had been estimated to grow to 4TB.

We are planning to use Sharepoint portal to provide interface
consolidation with all applications.(Sharepoint uses MS-SQL). Exchange
2003 clusters and Windows Storage Server 2003(WSS2003) clusters are
also in the pipeline. WSS2003 has Volume shadow copy service
(providing 255 snapshots). I preferred this as users will do their own
retrieval of versions of that file directly without administrator's
intervention to mount the backup volume. The box is not expected to
reach anywhere in 10+ TB for the next 2 years. This is a pure windows
shop but we don't rule out any other platform in the future.

Anyone had problems with LSI's SANshare with Microsoft's clusters?
Anyone ran Exchange 2003 on active-active cluster(each running
separate Information store on the LSI ware? Anyone had experiences
with HDS and MS's Clusters that can offer insights that i should look
out for?

I'm trying to do a ROI period stretching to 4 years. Upgrading of FC
controller are out of the question in the 4 year period. As the system
has to pay for itself in this 4 year period.

Your feedback is very much appreciated.