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
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
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... ? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Network Storage | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 1 | June 16th 06 07:17 PM |
Looking for network print server that also provides network connected storage and other features. | G.L. Cross | Printers | 0 | January 16th 06 05:03 PM |
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?) | [email protected] | Storage & Hardrives | 27 | January 13th 06 11:40 AM |
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?) | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 28 | January 13th 06 11:40 AM |
Network Storage? | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 2 | September 5th 05 06:04 PM |