If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Difference between SAN and NAS
Hi, im thinking there is not much logical difference between a SAN and
NAS in a small business environment. For example, say i have a file server which connects to a SAN. I have a number of drives defined in the array and then expose these drives and share them through samba. Now my network users connect to the server which connects to the drive array. No problem, but this is the same as NAS, so be it a stupid question, for a small setup as above NAS would be better correct? I guess the only advantage of SAN is that you would have the ability to use built in security of the servers OS rather than relying on features of the NAS server? Reason i ask is i need some large network storage cheap, and the previous manager i took over from defined a GBP 35k storage 2TB solution which im thinking is a little bit steep!! NAS with Raid 5 would be sufficient, and much much cheaper, however i like the idea of SAN for expandability. Thanks in advance for clarifications and recommendations! Chris |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Difference between SAN and NAS
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Difference between SAN and NAS
Thanks for the reply. Ive gone for a HP ProLiant DL380 G4 server as we
already have an HP rack and HP server domain controllers. It fits the bill nicely, and comes in at GBP 5,500 with 2.5TB of disk space. I was thinking of going for an Adaptec SnapServer but they seem quite expensive, the HP comes in at a few k less, however HP server runs windows which is another thing to screw up :3). Either way i've looked into iSCSI and it sounds ideal later when i want to run mail server storage... i now see the benefits of SAN when you have multiple servers needing storage space - ill be able to get good utilisation out of my disk drive space :3). Whilst we currently do not have a need we will in about 3 months so SAN will definetly give me flexibility. HP good/bad? Any reasons why Adaptec would be better? With HP i will have 7 bays free whereas the Adaptec only 2... another reason i chose HP. Comments most welcome. Cheers, Chris |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Difference between SAN and NAS
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Difference between SAN and NAS
Even that seems a bit pricey for serving just a couple of TB of storage:
unless it's really heavily used by many concurrent clients a single-processor box should be more than adequate (especially given the inexpensive dual-core products now generally available). But perhaps you have ambitious expansion plans. Thanks for the pointers. As the disk requirements are likely to grow in stages upto a multi server disk solution im going to use the DL380 as a NAS server with SMB shares initially. Once i start using Exchange, and running the SQL databases i think the solution will allow me to scale the drive requirements. At that point i can buy some extra disks (only GBP140 per 250GB), add the iSCSI addon HP pack and ill be away laughing. I agree putting fixed arrays in each computer is a good idea and much cheaper, but IT is my secondary function really and i dont want to be messing about sorting out individual raid arrays for each server (in the long term we will have around 6 servers requiring redundancy, keeping the RAID in once place will be boon in terms of my management time, my time is money and all that and it may work out cheaper in the long run). Thats the idea anyways. Thinking about it ive just answered my own original question!! I'll use NAS for the time being, and grow to SAN once i have the servers in situ. Thanks again guys. Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|