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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
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. It typically comes down to whether you need to access the same files or file systems from more than one client. If that is your access, then NAS tends to make more sense. NAS also allows you to grant a rather broad range of access controls. Common access for CIFS and NFS is a pretty standard feature, implementations differ on how that mapping is done. It is a bit harder to convert a SAN to a multi client access since unless you have software in the multiple clients that allows safe access to the same virtual drive, you will corrupt data immediately. However if you do go SAN and later need to go multi client, just use a bigger san host with a large memory and multiple processors as a file server. SAN is indeed harder to administer. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
On Jan 20, 8:29*am, (the wharf rat) wrote:
In article , wrote: I am going to rule expensive NAS boxes out, as you want to do bth * * * * Why? *What about NAS prevents either? *How do you do "generic file share" with a SAN? *Unless you buy a (very) expensive NAS head for your EMC SAN... * * * * I know SANs are really cool but unless you explicitly need shared block level storage (say for an Oracle cluster) is there any reason to prefer one in this situation? so... i didnt say to buy an expensiv NAS box... NAS boxes are traditionally crap at block storage, but SAN arrays can be used for all sorts. Just use a windows server with HBA's day one, and this will serve its purpose. As the infrastructure expands - then look to use a nas head (possibly)... OnSTOR make some decent device, and NetAPP will now qualify their NAS heads with generic storage (a number of large accounts have NetAPP heads working with HDS, EMC & 3PAR storage subsystems) At the moment cost and flexibility is key for this gent at the moment. Cheers, B |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
The advantages of a SAN relate to pure performance and its ability
Why use SAN if you have no cluster-capable server software? put the same disk drives inside the usual server and install the usual OS there. Why use NAS if you can buy an InWin case, Asus mobo, Intel CPU (for SMB file serving, Celeron is enough) and Kingstone memory, several Seagate drives, assemble all of this yourself within 40 minutes, install the commodity server OS (Windows, Linux or FreeBSD - choose your favourite, BTW, Windows is very good in SMB file serving performance) - and go on? If something will break, just replace it. It takes 4 hours, not more, for the IT guy to replace the failed mobo, the time includes the visit to the store to buy it. You are also free to have spare parts, making this time to be 20 minutes or so. Proper backup software (I know 3 good disk imaging backup products, and several file-level ones) will save you from the danger of hard disk failure. Mirroring is also capable of this. Snapshot technologies are here in most backup software (where they belong primarily), in Windows Server (below the filesystem) and in late FreeBSD releases (at filesystem level). I think in Linux too. So, looks like paying for a specialized NAS machine is an overkill, unless you have a critical requirement of 24x7 uptime and hot vendor's support. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
In article ,
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote: Why use SAN if you have no cluster-capable server software? put the same disk drives inside the usual server and install the usual OS there. Storage consolidation is generally a good idea. Local storage has significant disadvantges in terms of performance and reliability. A storage network lets you make efficient use of available storage, simplifies backups and recoveries, allows you to build a single ruggedized array, and so on. Why use NAS if you can buy an InWin case, Asus mobo, Intel CPU (for SMB file serving, Celeron is enough) and Kingstone memory, several Seagate drives, Because not everyone has the time, head count, or skill set available for such a project. Also, commercial NAS servers like NetApp offer a feature set that would be difficult and expensive to replicate in a home built. BTW, if you cost it out you'll see that a roll your own isn't a *whole* lot cheaper than an off the shelf solution. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:56:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: On Jan 20, 8:29*am, (the wharf rat) wrote: In article , wrote: I am going to rule expensive NAS boxes out, as you want to do bth * * * * Why? *What about NAS prevents either? *How do you do "generic file share" with a SAN? *Unless you buy a (very) expensive NAS head for your EMC SAN... * * * * I know SANs are really cool but unless you explicitly need shared block level storage (say for an Oracle cluster) is there any reason to prefer one in this situation? so... i didnt say to buy an expensiv NAS box... NAS boxes are traditionally crap at block storage, but SAN arrays can be used for all sorts. Just use a windows server with HBA's day one, and this will serve its purpose. As the infrastructure expands - then look to use a nas head (possibly)... OnSTOR make some decent device, and NetAPP will now qualify their NAS heads with generic storage (a number of large accounts have NetAPP heads working with HDS, EMC & 3PAR storage subsystems) At the moment cost and flexibility is key for this gent at the moment. Cheers, B My experience is that applications that claim they need block access are incorrect. I think SAN is a niche technology, especially considering 70% of all data is unstructured files. And Oracle *recommends* using NFS with Oracle RAC, so clustered Oracle on NAS is preferred. The only things I can think of that *need* _shared_ block level storage are clustered file systems. Other that that, everything I've ever run across will work on NAS. Caveat: I don't do Windows. ~F |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Network Storage Help
Faeandar wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:56:03 -0800 (PST), " wrote: On Jan 20, 8:29?am, (the wharf rat) wrote: In article , wrote: I am going to rule expensive NAS boxes out, as you want to do bth ? ? ? ? Why? ?What about NAS prevents either? ?How do you do "generic file share" with a SAN? ?Unless you buy a (very) expensive NAS head for your EMC SAN... ? ? ? ? I know SANs are really cool but unless you explicitly need shared block level storage (say for an Oracle cluster) is there any reason to prefer one in this situation? so... i didnt say to buy an expensiv NAS box... NAS boxes are traditionally crap at block storage, but SAN arrays can be used for all sorts. Just use a windows server with HBA's day one, and this will serve its purpose. As the infrastructure expands - then look to use a nas head (possibly)... OnSTOR make some decent device, and NetAPP will now qualify their NAS heads with generic storage (a number of large accounts have NetAPP heads working with HDS, EMC & 3PAR storage subsystems) At the moment cost and flexibility is key for this gent at the moment. Cheers, B My experience is that applications that claim they need block access are incorrect. I think SAN is a niche technology, especially considering 70% of all data is unstructured files. And Oracle *recommends* using NFS with Oracle RAC, so clustered Oracle on NAS is preferred. The only things I can think of that *need* _shared_ block level storage are clustered file systems. Other that that, everything I've ever run across will work on NAS. Caveat: I don't do Windows. ~F SANs exist for more than "shared block level storage". They exist for massive amounts of reliable storage. This is handy for dozens or hundreds of machines. If you need more space on host X, you carve it up and use it. It's very convenient, and you don't have the overhead of NFS and NFS tuning issues either, not to mention dual paths over FC drives the reliability way up, and newer 2 and 4Gb FC cards and switches are plain out faster than ethernet anways. As for security, NFS has none. On a SAN, you'd have a much harder time accessing data that's not yours. |
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 06:03 PM |
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?) | [email protected] | Storage & Hardrives | 27 | January 13th 06 12:40 PM |
Network storage for home network (wifi or not?) | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 28 | January 13th 06 12:40 PM |
Network Storage? | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 2 | September 5th 05 06:04 PM |