Server vs. NAS Storage

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:13:57 +0200, Ruediger Grimm
wrote:

Hi,

I think with an SAN/NAS-attached storage You have the following
advantages:

- scalability: The storage can grow far more than a direct attached
disk-storage

Not entirely true, they can grow about the same. A Solaris server
will address a grip of storage, how much exactly I no longer know, but
I'd venture a guess it's in the the double digit terabytes if not
more.

- availability/disaster-recovery: If You organize Your data well, You
can mount the remote-storage by another server and contitue Your business.

This is a very good point. If the original poster provides more info
this may be a crucial piece of the puzzle.

~F



tbase [ruediger]
http://www.uname-a.net

Not entirely true, they can grow about the same. A Solaris server
will address a grip of storage, how much exactly I no longer know, but
I'd venture a guess it's in the the double digit terabytes if not
more.

Hi,

shure, they can grow about the same.
My point in this argument pointed more to the physical problem:
Most of the server You can buy has a limited number of, let´s say,
"slots" to attach a disk direct. This "slots" are SCSI, internal FC, and
so on. But this number is more limited than, for example, a HDS where
You can add ~ 400 Disks an more.

tbase [Ruediger]
http://www.uname-a.net

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:03:51 +0200, Ruediger Grimm
wrote:

Not entirely true, they can grow about the same. A Solaris server
will address a grip of storage, how much exactly I no longer know, but
I'd venture a guess it's in the the double digit terabytes if not
more.

Hi,

shure, they can grow about the same.
My point in this argument pointed more to the physical problem:
Most of the server You can buy has a limited number of, let´s say,
"slots" to attach a disk direct. This "slots" are SCSI, internal FC, and
so on. But this number is more limited than, for example, a HDS where
You can add ~ 400 Disks an more.

tbase [Ruediger]
http://www.uname-a.net

I just got confused. When did HDS come into the picture in a NAS v.
Server debate?

From a slot standpoint, most GP servers are made of the same basic
hardware as NAS appliances. For instance, the NetApp 980 has 12 or so
slot openings (though not all of those are available for FC/disk
controllers) and the Sun E3800 has about the same, give or take a
slot. This means to me that I can add about the same number of
shelves to each and get about the same amount of bandwidth.

~F

I am not sure I specifically said you dont have to do those things for
a NAS device, but they are most definalty easier and less frequent.


Paul Rubin wrote:
"Stunster" writes:
A server you have to buy an operating system, maintain software
patches, worry about security holes, maintain the OS which may or may
not have advances volume management capabilities.

NAS is up and running in minutes, dedicated system for file serving,
maximum flexibility for volume management.

What makes you think an NAS doesn't also need patches and have
security holes?

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 09:21:20 -0700, richardkaplan2 wrote:

Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?

Here's an example of one: When I last checked (which was, admittedly, a
while back), no NAS devices I could find would support the near-POSIX ACLs
over NFSv3. Worse, nobody that did support NFSv4 was support it's ACLs.

Building a NAS out of either Linux or Solaris, one gets ACLs over NFS.

It's a very specific need, admittedly, but it's one example of a situation
that might drive choosing a server over a "device".

[I did actually find one NAS "device" vendor that support ACLs over NFS.
But their device was a Linux machine. And it had many problems, none of
which I ever had on Linux that I'd installed myself.]

- Andrew

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:04:15 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 09:21:20 -0700, richardkaplan2 wrote:

Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?

Here's an example of one: When I last checked (which was, admittedly, a
while back), no NAS devices I could find would support the near-POSIX ACLs
over NFSv3. Worse, nobody that did support NFSv4 was support it's ACLs.

That's because the ACL's for NFSv4 are not even standardized yet. The
support for ACL's is not scheduled until v4.1.

~F


Building a NAS out of either Linux or Solaris, one gets ACLs over NFS.

It's a very specific need, admittedly, but it's one example of a situation
that might drive choosing a server over a "device".

[I did actually find one NAS "device" vendor that support ACLs over NFS.
But their device was a Linux machine. And it had many problems, none of
which I ever had on Linux that I'd installed myself.]

- Andrew

I would look at buying a server with ATA storage and loading the distro
from freenas.org. It is an linux distro made jsut for nas and offers
all the features that a high end nas box would.

Faeandar wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:04:15 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 09:21:20 -0700, richardkaplan2 wrote:

Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?

Here's an example of one: When I last checked (which was, admittedly, a
while back), no NAS devices I could find would support the near-POSIX ACLs
over NFSv3. Worse, nobody that did support NFSv4 was support it's ACLs.

That's because the ACL's for NFSv4 are not even standardized yet. The
support for ACL's is not scheduled until v4.1.

~F


Building a NAS out of either Linux or Solaris, one gets ACLs over NFS.

It's a very specific need, admittedly, but it's one example of a situation
that might drive choosing a server over a "device".

[I did actually find one NAS "device" vendor that support ACLs over NFS.
But their device was a Linux machine. And it had many problems, none of
which I ever had on Linux that I'd installed myself.]

- Andrew