Network Storage Help

Hello everyone,
I have been cruising this group for some time. But most of the
posts that interest me in my needs are too specific to their company.
So here is my problem. I hope you can help.

I work for a small law firm/medical claims office/student loans and
recovery of roughly 140 users. We have 2 offices and people that work
from home. We also have roughly 13 servers (PDC, BDC, FTP, 3 Web
Servers, Mail Server, EPO server, CRM server, and Fax Server Cisco
Call Manager, Cisco Unity, and Cisco IPCC). We have an AS400 but for
this conversation I will only talk about the images that are moved
from the AS400 to the file server. Several of these servers are
accessed constently by users. Some are accessed constently by another
server. Or it is a combination of both. Some of the folders on the
file server is just another way to store my application installs
manuals and guides. I do keep these at my house to for that just in
case .

Our network has 3 switches that are on the same network, and one that
is not. Most of our servers have 2 connections: private and public
network. Also the FTP, 2 Web Servers, and Mail server is on Fedora
Core Linux. The others are either Windows 200/2003 32-bit version. The
other Web Server is Web Edition. All use TCP/IP protocol.

Now for the question(s)? Should I go with a SAN or a NAS? Keep in mind
that my boss is cheap, but if I can really really really explain to
him why the more expensive one is better, he might go with it. But
none of them uses scsi nor do we have fiber optics.

Would it be wise to have a tape library, then a nas/san attached to
it, then the san attached to the network?

scotv453 wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have been cruising this group for some time. But most of the
posts that interest me in my needs are too specific to their company.
So here is my problem. I hope you can help.

I work for a small law firm/medical claims office/student loans and
recovery of roughly 140 users. We have 2 offices and people that work
from home. We also have roughly 13 servers (PDC, BDC, FTP, 3 Web
Servers, Mail Server, EPO server, CRM server, and Fax Server Cisco
Call Manager, Cisco Unity, and Cisco IPCC). We have an AS400 but for
this conversation I will only talk about the images that are moved
from the AS400 to the file server. Several of these servers are
accessed constently by users. Some are accessed constently by another
server. Or it is a combination of both. Some of the folders on the
file server is just another way to store my application installs
manuals and guides. I do keep these at my house to for that just in
case .

Our network has 3 switches that are on the same network, and one that
is not. Most of our servers have 2 connections: private and public
network. Also the FTP, 2 Web Servers, and Mail server is on Fedora
Core Linux. The others are either Windows 200/2003 32-bit version. The
other Web Server is Web Edition. All use TCP/IP protocol.

Now for the question(s)? Should I go with a SAN or a NAS? Keep in mind
that my boss is cheap, but if I can really really really explain to
him why the more expensive one is better, he might go with it. But
none of them uses scsi nor do we have fiber optics.

Would it be wise to have a tape library, then a nas/san attached to
it, then the san attached to the network?

if your boss is cheap, just do nothing.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:25:50 -0800 (PST), scotv453
wrote:

Hello everyone,
I have been cruising this group for some time. But most of the
posts that interest me in my needs are too specific to their company.
So here is my problem. I hope you can help.

I work for a small law firm/medical claims office/student loans and
recovery of roughly 140 users. We have 2 offices and people that work
from home. We also have roughly 13 servers (PDC, BDC, FTP, 3 Web
Servers, Mail Server, EPO server, CRM server, and Fax Server Cisco
Call Manager, Cisco Unity, and Cisco IPCC). We have an AS400 but for
this conversation I will only talk about the images that are moved
from the AS400 to the file server. Several of these servers are
accessed constently by users. Some are accessed constently by another
server. Or it is a combination of both. Some of the folders on the
file server is just another way to store my application installs
manuals and guides. I do keep these at my house to for that just in
case .

Our network has 3 switches that are on the same network, and one that
is not. Most of our servers have 2 connections: private and public
network. Also the FTP, 2 Web Servers, and Mail server is on Fedora
Core Linux. The others are either Windows 200/2003 32-bit version. The
other Web Server is Web Edition. All use TCP/IP protocol.

Now for the question(s)? Should I go with a SAN or a NAS? Keep in mind
that my boss is cheap, but if I can really really really explain to
him why the more expensive one is better, he might go with it. But
none of them uses scsi nor do we have fiber optics.

Would it be wise to have a tape library, then a nas/san attached to
it, then the san attached to the network?


If your apps are file based then go NAS, if they want direct access to
storage ala blocks then go SAN. For SAN you can choose FC or iSCSI,
either will work.

~F

On Jan 14, 8:25*am, scotv453 wrote:
Hello everyone,
* * *I have been cruising this group for some time. But most of the
posts that interest me in my needs are too specific to their company.
So here is my problem. I hope you can help.

I work for a small law firm/medical claims office/student loans and
recovery of roughly 140 users. We have 2 offices and people that work
from home. We also have roughly 13 servers (PDC, BDC, FTP, 3 Web
Servers, Mail Server, EPO server, CRM server, and Fax Server Cisco
Call Manager, Cisco Unity, and Cisco IPCC). We have an AS400 but for
this conversation I will only talk about the images that are moved
from the AS400 to the file server. Several of these servers are
accessed constently by users. Some are accessed constently by another
server. Or it is a combination of both. Some of the folders on the
file server is just another way to store my application installs
manuals and guides. I do keep these at my house to for that just in
case .

*Our network has 3 switches that are on the same network, and one that
is not. Most of our servers have 2 connections: private and public
network. Also the FTP, 2 Web Servers, and Mail server is on Fedora
Core Linux. The others are either Windows 200/2003 32-bit version. The
other Web Server is Web Edition. All use TCP/IP protocol.

Now for the question(s)? Should I go with a SAN or a NAS? Keep in mind
that my boss is cheap, but if I can really really really explain to
him why the more expensive one is better, he might go with it. But
none of them uses scsi nor do we have fiber optics.

Would it be wise to have a tape library, then a nas/san attached to
it, then the san attached to the network?

have you looked at compellent?

In article ,
scotv453 wrote:

Now for the question(s)? Should I go with a SAN or a NAS? Keep in mind

NAS.

The advantages of a SAN relate to pure performance and its ability
to share storage as block devices. That means that the SAN looks like any
other disc drive to the host so to, say, make a network share you'd need to
attach the SAN device to a Windows file server then share the file system
you create. But SANs are complicated to set up and administer, and still
more expensive than simple network filesystems.

Running a network filesystem over gigabit links will certainly provide
adequate performance, and you can most probably find a NAS device that
interacts with Unix as well as Windows. I don't see anything in your list
that requires the kind of speed or flexibility a SAN provides and so can't
see any reason to recommend one over an probably cheaper and certainly easier
to manage NAS.

If you're comfortable with Linux and want to save money there's
no reason not to buy a reasonable SCSI (or even SATA!) disc array (make
sure to plan for adequate expansion both in volume and throughput) and
use a Linux server as the NAS device. The redundancy will be built into
the array - if the Linux server dies completely it's easy enough to swap
in something temporary - and if you DO decide to experiment with SAN storage
Linux supports iSCSI just fine. And yes, you will need some kind of backup
device.

On Jan 15, 10:31*pm, (the wharf rat) wrote:
In article ,

scotv453 wrote:

Now for the question(s)? Should I go with a SAN or a NAS? Keep in mind

* * * * NAS.

* * * * The advantages of a SAN relate to pure performance and its ability
to share storage as block devices. *That means that the SAN looks like any
other disc drive to the host so to, say, make a network share you'd need to
attach the SAN device to a Windows file server then share the file system
you create. *But SANs are complicated to set up and administer, and still
more expensive than simple network filesystems.

* * * * Running a network filesystem over gigabit links will certainly provide
adequate performance, and you can most probably find a NAS device that
interacts with Unix as well as Windows. *I don't see anything in your list
that requires the kind of speed or flexibility a SAN provides and so can't
see any reason to recommend one over an probably cheaper and certainly easier
to manage NAS.

* * * * If you're comfortable with Linux and want to save money there's
no reason not to buy a reasonable SCSI (or even SATA!) disc array (make
sure to plan for adequate expansion both in volume and throughput) and
use a Linux server as the NAS device. *The redundancy will be built into
the array - if the Linux server dies completely it's easy enough to swap
in something temporary - and if you DO decide to experiment with SAN storage
Linux supports iSCSI just fine. *And yes, you will need some kind of backup
device.


Thanks for the input everyone. Including the person that said do
nothing. Even that would be an idea, but we do need some type of
backup and storage device.

scotv453 wrote:
On Jan 15, 10:31?pm, (the wharf rat) wrote:
In article ,

scotv453 wrote:

Now for the question(s)? Should I go with a SAN or a NAS? Keep in mind

? ? ? ? NAS.

? ? ? ? The advantages of a SAN relate to pure performance and its ability
to share storage as block devices. ?That means that the SAN looks like any
other disc drive to the host so to, say, make a network share you'd need to
attach the SAN device to a Windows file server then share the file system
you create. ?But SANs are complicated to set up and administer, and still
more expensive than simple network filesystems.

? ? ? ? Running a network filesystem over gigabit links will certainly provide
adequate performance, and you can most probably find a NAS device that
interacts with Unix as well as Windows. ?I don't see anything in your list
that requires the kind of speed or flexibility a SAN provides and so can't
see any reason to recommend one over an probably cheaper and certainly easier
to manage NAS.

? ? ? ? If you're comfortable with Linux and want to save money there's
no reason not to buy a reasonable SCSI (or even SATA!) disc array (make
sure to plan for adequate expansion both in volume and throughput) and
use a Linux server as the NAS device. ?The redundancy will be built into
the array - if the Linux server dies completely it's easy enough to swap
in something temporary - and if you DO decide to experiment with SAN storage
Linux supports iSCSI just fine. ?And yes, you will need some kind of backup
device.


Thanks for the input everyone. Including the person that said do
nothing. Even that would be an idea, but we do need some type of
backup and storage device.

I still maintain that cheap +backup (or storage) = disaster.

you may want to take a look at Adaptec's Snap Servers. The small rack
mount units are decent.

In article ,
Cydrome Leader wrote:

I still maintain that cheap +backup (or storage) = disaster.


But isn't that what the "I" stands for? Redundant Array of
Inexpensive... ?

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:00:55 +0000 (UTC), (the wharf
rat) wrote:

In article ,
Cydrome Leader wrote:

I still maintain that cheap +backup (or storage) = disaster.


But isn't that what the "I" stands for? Redundant Array of
Inexpensive... ?

Originally no, today yes.

~F

the wharf rat wrote:
In article ,
Cydrome Leader wrote:

I still maintain that cheap +backup (or storage) = disaster.


But isn't that what the "I" stands for? Redundant Array of
Inexpensive... ?

IBM was pushing it as "Independent" is more accurate, because nothing from
them is cheap.

Still, disks are only one component in a storage system.

Other big deal parts are

enclosure/ power/ cooling

the drives

the disk controllers, and the some way to actually access the data. A NAS
will add some sort of OS between the disks and network. This is where you
get the more advanced features like snapshots and backup stuff.

If any of those parts sucks, the entire setup fails and well, you can't
get to your data anymore, which might be a problem.

The software side seems pretty stable these days, but when you run out to
get the cheapest NAS appliance, you will end up with lower grade power
supplies (if even redundant), sloppy fitting disk caddies and crappy fans,
plus any support will be limited to an email telling you to reinstall.
Good luck on getting replacement parts fast too.