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
|
|||
|
|||
comparison between NetApp Filer and EMC Celerra
"Jack Stewart" wrote in message
... Does anyone have (relatively recent) experience with both a NetApp NAS & EMC Celerra? If so, I'ld appreciate any comments that you might have. Our management is looking into replacing our NAS3020 with a Celerra NS40G. Thanks in advance! What is your management hoping to gain from this switch? The 3020 is still a current machine, does it fail to perform it's duties in some way? Rob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
comparison between NetApp Filer and EMC Celerra
On Jun 9, 10:11 am, "Rob Turk" wrote:
"Jack Stewart" wrote in message ... Does anyone have (relatively recent) experience with both a NetApp NAS & EMC Celerra? If so, I'ld appreciate any comments that you might have. Our management is looking into replacing our NAS3020 with a Celerra NS40G. Thanks in advance! What is your management hoping to gain from this switch? The 3020 is still a current machine, does it fail to perform it's duties in some way? Rob Their main motivation is that they are hoping to leverage the Clarion infrastructure and our considerably larger relationship with Dell/EMC. Unfortunately EMC doesn't seem to be willing to give us any type of demo Celerra unit at this time so my analysis is strictly based on their documentation and answers from the Sales Engineers (who frankly don't seem to understand the product very well). So real world experience of the Celerra is what I'm most looking for. People who have migrated from one to another (either way) would be fabulous, but even plain real world experience of the Celerra would help (EMC also hasn't located a decent Customer reference yet). The 3020 is working fine although ndmpd backups are not going as fast as we would like - it is probably more of an issue with the backup system - although I'm beginning to think that my RAID group & Aggregate configuration is sub-optimal. ---Jack P.S. Sorry for the change in headers, my Palm newsreader foobar'ed this article. P.S. Based on what I've read so far, the Celerra has a more feature rich CIFS implementation. The spare "head/cpu board" is a nice feature as are the disjoint CIFS/ Unix ACL's. On the other hand, the Celerra seems more wasteful of disk allocation and more difficult to manage in our environment which is script based. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
comparison between NetApp Filer and EMC Celerra
On Jun 9, 11:11 pm, virtualjack wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:11 am, "Rob Turk" wrote: "Jack Stewart" wrote in message ... Does anyone have (relatively recent) experience with both a NetApp NAS & EMC Celerra? If so, I'ld appreciate any comments that you might have. Our management is looking into replacing our NAS3020 with a Celerra NS40G. Thanks in advance! What is your management hoping to gain from this switch? The 3020 is still a current machine, does it fail to perform it's duties in some way? Rob Their main motivation is that they are hoping to leverage the Clarion infrastructure and our considerably larger relationship with Dell/EMC. Unfortunately EMC doesn't seem to be willing to give us any type of demo Celerra unit at this time so my analysis is strictly based on their documentation and answers from the Sales Engineers (who frankly don't seem to understand the product very well). So real world experience of the Celerra is what I'm most looking for. People who have migrated from one to another (either way) would be fabulous, but even plain real world experience of the Celerra would help (EMC also hasn't located a decent Customer reference yet). The 3020 is working fine although ndmpd backups are not going as fast as we would like - it is probably more of an issue with the backup system - although I'm beginning to think that my RAID group & Aggregate configuration is sub-optimal. ---Jack P.S. Sorry for the change in headers, my Palm newsreader foobar'ed this article. P.S. Based on what I've read so far, the Celerra has a more feature rich CIFS implementation. The spare "head/cpu board" is a nice feature as are the disjoint CIFS/ Unix ACL's. On the other hand, the Celerra seems more wasteful of disk allocation and more difficult to manage in our environment which is script based.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - May I ask, which backup server are you using ? ndmp is purely file base backup which uses unix dump. NetApp is best design for reading so if data layout is well placed then read shouldn't be the issue. Check with your backup server performance ? Mainly factors those afftect the ndmp performance are : more no. of file in the volume, average file size is very less, or if there are file level fragmentation etc. So you check in this direction. One another thing which may be the reason is usage of filer during ndmp remains good because ndmp is low priority job compared to CIFS/ NFS data serving. So you check that also. - Raju |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
comparison between NetApp Filer and EMC Celerra
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:11:53 -0700, virtualjack
wrote: On Jun 9, 10:11 am, "Rob Turk" wrote: "Jack Stewart" wrote in message ... Does anyone have (relatively recent) experience with both a NetApp NAS & EMC Celerra? If so, I'ld appreciate any comments that you might have. Our management is looking into replacing our NAS3020 with a Celerra NS40G. Thanks in advance! What is your management hoping to gain from this switch? The 3020 is still a current machine, does it fail to perform it's duties in some way? Rob Their main motivation is that they are hoping to leverage the Clarion infrastructure and our considerably larger relationship with Dell/EMC. Unfortunately EMC doesn't seem to be willing to give us any type of demo Celerra unit at this time so my analysis is strictly based on their documentation and answers from the Sales Engineers (who frankly don't seem to understand the product very well). When a vendor is not willing to let you try before you buy that should be a warning sign. And when the SE does not understand what it is he's supposed to support, well that's another warning sign. So real world experience of the Celerra is what I'm most looking for. People who have migrated from one to another (either way) would be fabulous, but even plain real world experience of the Celerra would help (EMC also hasn't located a decent Customer reference yet). I would wager that's because they do not have one for their NAS. I ma a NetApp biggot when it comes to traditional NAS so keep that in mind as I spout off about both. I do not have any direct EMC experience so all my info on that end is purely anecdotal. But I do talk with other shops and the few that have had EMC NAS got rid of it at the earliest opportunity, usually following some major outage. I spoke to one shop where they removed all the EMC NAS blades after they took a 6 hour downtime for EMC to perform a DART upgrade. That was it, no hardware swaps, no data migration, nothing. Just an OS upgrade. That happened twice so it wasn;t isolated. They got rid of it within a month after the second one. I don't recall what they moved to so it may not have been NetApp. If you go looking for shops that are heavy users of NAS it is my opinion you will not find a single one that uses EMC. I'm certain you'll find some shops where they have alot of EMC SAN and need NAS for one or two things, so they drop in a Celerra and it "works enough". But any real users will not touch that stuff. The 3020 is working fine although ndmpd backups are not going as fast as we would like - it is probably more of an issue with the backup system - although I'm beginning to think that my RAID group & Aggregate configuration is sub-optimal. Backups on a filer simply use dump, so nothing magic there. Many times when backups are problematic it's because there are a ton of files. There is nothing any file system will do to fix that for a dump-type backup. Snapshots, block level backups, etc all mask the real issue. But for a full file system dump you're just hosed if that's your problem. Post your aggregate layout and we can give you pointers if it's truly sub-optimal. Changing out something that is "working fine" is usually a sign of bad things to come. ---Jack P.S. Based on what I've read so far, the Celerra has a more feature rich CIFS implementation. The spare "head/cpu board" is a nice feature as are the disjoint CIFS/ Unix ACL's. On the other hand, the Celerra seems more wasteful of disk allocation and more difficult to manage in our environment which is script based. Unless EMC deviated from the CIFS spec I don't see how they can have a more rich feature set than NetApp. I'm pretty sure the only way to get more CIFS features than NetApp is to use Windows NAS. Which, btw, I would recommend before I recommend the Celerra. I assume the 3020 is not clustered? With 12 clusters I have 8 that had 100% availability last year. 2 of those required RAM swaps, the rest were OS bugs causing panics. But because of clustering there was no impact to access. ~F |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
comparison between NetApp Filer and EMC Celerra
Backups on a filer simply use dump, so nothing magic there. Many
times when backups are problematic it's because there are a ton of files. There is nothing any file system will do to fix that for a dump-type backup. Snapshots, block level backups, etc all mask the real issue. But for a full file system dump you're just hosed if that's your problem. In Windows, the block level backup speed is NOT related to number of files on the volume. The reason is that in Windows, such backup has no need to enumerate the files. There is FSCTL_GET_VOLUME_BITMAP call which allows to enumerate the _busy blocks on the volume_, regardless of to what file do they belong. When I saw Linux last time (early 2000ies), it only had FIBMAP IOCTL which is the same as Windows's FSCTL_GET_RETRIEVAL_POINTERS - get the disk block number for a file offset. As about FSCTL_GET_VOLUME_BITMAP - it was absent in Linux. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
comparison between NetApp Filer and EMC Celerra
virtualjack wrote:
Their main motivation is that they are hoping to leverage the Clarion infrastructure and our considerably larger relationship with Dell/EMC. Have they considered one of the Netapp V series heads, you could use that to provide NAS services (as wells as iSCSI & FC target services) in front of the Clariion storage. At least try getting an eval from Netapp, I bet if you're EMC salesman new that you had the Netapp box in for test he'd be much more willing to let you get hands on a Celerra. Right now I expect he thinks he's in the driving seat and you'll end up swallowing the Celerra if he just hangs tough. -- Nik Simpson |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
comparison between NetApp Filer and EMC Celerra
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:41:39 +0400, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
wrote: Backups on a filer simply use dump, so nothing magic there. Many times when backups are problematic it's because there are a ton of files. There is nothing any file system will do to fix that for a dump-type backup. Snapshots, block level backups, etc all mask the real issue. But for a full file system dump you're just hosed if that's your problem. In Windows, the block level backup speed is NOT related to number of files on the volume. The reason is that in Windows, such backup has no need to enumerate the files. There is FSCTL_GET_VOLUME_BITMAP call which allows to enumerate the _busy blocks on the volume_, regardless of to what file do they belong. When I saw Linux last time (early 2000ies), it only had FIBMAP IOCTL which is the same as Windows's FSCTL_GET_RETRIEVAL_POINTERS - get the disk block number for a file offset. As about FSCTL_GET_VOLUME_BITMAP - it was absent in Linux. I was not referring to block level backups. Snapshot to tape from NetApp for a volume level backup is lightning fast and will push tape to it's max instantly, and keep it there. But when you want to backup *files* you have to enumerate and match inodes and files to blocks. That is where it matters not at all what file system you have, you are borked. ~F |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
comparison between NetApp Filer and EMC Celerra
Thanks to everyone for their feedback.
It is somewhat telling that nobody has jumped in (yet) and said that "the Celerra has been Great for us!". Our backup situation vastly improved once we power cycled the backup control host (a Sun box running Backup Express from Sync Sort) and the Jukebox ( a Spectra Logic Gator). Bizarre. One of our back up sets contains lots of little files so it will always be slow (it is Maildir which will be migrating to a SAN real soon now ...). Snapshot to tape would give us great performance but it only allows for full file system restores. It seems to be that near line storage/virtual tapes might be a good upgrade but it is pricey. I hate to defend a box that that we have never had but based on their dog & pony show, the out of the box EMC's CIFS shares of filesystems are virtual so you can have one IP address per filesystem. This feature does not extend to NFS (IP's are for all shares). The NetApp doesn't do this unless you purchase their virtual server license. This kind of strikes me as one of those "optional" features that get bundled with new car no matter what. The disjoint ACL's may or may not be beneficial depending on your point of view. I wish we could afford a 3020 cluster - that is one of the reasons we are considering a Celerra. On the other hand, we have never had a hardware failure on any of our NetApps (other than a typical disk failure) as far back as our group has been running NetApps (at least 1999). I would chose a NAS over a Microsoft server for CIFS shares any day, especially dual purpose home directories. Microsoft servers have a habit of issues after their frequent patches and running a Samba server is no joy. Again, thanks to everyone for their help. ---Jack Faeandar & other's wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:41:39 +0400, "Maxim S. Shatskih" wrote: |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
comparison between NetApp Filer and EMC Celerra
Jack,
Here are some objective high level comparisons that you may want to look into. I have extensive experience with the Celerra and I can assure you there are many large businesses using these units exclusively with minimal issues. Same goes for NetApp, recent versions of both products work very well but there are some notable differences. I'm an NACE and have implemented both solutions for a number of clients both small and large and directly managed Celerra in a medium sized organization (100TB managed) a couple years ago. Here's what I've seen: Also first, let me say that I enjoy working with both products, and they're both top notch, it's just a matter of understanding caveats and how those caveats impact your functional requirements. Usually they dont, and it comes down to cost/preference/politics/relationships, or some other non-technical reason. Availability: I've seen and heard horror stories from both sides. If you have a proper configuration both products should perform as advertised. I've been in clients that ripped out NetApp and went with EMC, and vice versa. The Reasons are numerous. Back-end Disk management: NetApp provides a very 'direct' way of managing disks which belong to the system. It's very easy to ensure data is kept on separate spindles. It's also very easy to configure any type of aggregate/raid group configuration you'd like (only raid4 or raidDP of course..). The celerra has its own volume manager called AVM. It's slightly more difficult to force your data onto certain spindles, and only certain layouts in regards to RAID group configuration per shelf are permitted. You can still place data discreetly, but make sure to understand AVM and it's implications, you also have the option of performing a manual volume config. Functionally both work very well, but a couple more caveats on the EMC side. If you're using this for CIFS only, you can typically let AVM manage all of the disks from the start, and it will automatically balance IO across the backend disks. Just make sure the implementation engineer knows this and explains it to you well. Interface and management: The Celerra in my opinion has a more functional management interface, both GUI and CLI. I think this is what you were alluding to, not necessarily CIFS features. Theres one (or two for redundancy) dedicated 1U management server called the control station. This is essentailly runs a customized linux distro which contains a set of applications which manage the data movers (the actual NAS hardware). It also runs a webserver which presents the GUI interface which is JAVA based. The GUI has much more performance analysis features that the NetApp side, and looks a lot better (if that matters). Also, since the control station is a linux box, and you do have root access to it, and you actually get a real fully functional bash shell. It'll may even be easier to manage via a script based management infrastructure. CIFS/NFS (file access): Couple things worth noting off the top of my head. The Celerra does offer more of what I'd call, configuration flexibility. basically, it essentially allows you to perform the equivalent of what the vFiler option would do out of the box. Just an example, you can create multiple virtual CIFS servers and join them to separate domains. In fact to present data via CIFS you need to create one of these. You also have the option of presenting filesystems over 1 or many CIFS servers simultaneously. On the NFS side, if you do need to leverage multiprotocol access to a LARGE number of users, the usermapper in the celerra is usually easier to configure than manually defining usermap.cfg. There are some automated methods to achieve this with the celerra and are EMC supported. iSCSI (block access): Functionally, both products perform equally well. Although Replication manager is far more advanced than what NetApp has to offer and the latest version (5.0) does work very well and will also control snapshots and replication on the clariion and symmetrix platform (its equivalent is Snapdrive and Snap manager for sql/exch/oracle). One main differentiator is the capability of RM to automatically mount a filesystem/database remotely and run a script. Only thing I can think of that it wont do is the automated database moves that snapmanager can do. Snapshots: The mechanism for taking snapshots differs among the two vendors, I wont get into details, but the main functional differences are 1) limits, EMC allows 96 snaps per filesystem (NetApp Volume), NetApp allows 255. However, with the NetApp appliance you have no option but to store your snapshot locked blocks in your production volume. The EMC solution allows you to store blocks required by your snapshot in a seperate disk pool. I.E. prod FS could be on FC disk, blocks used for snaps can be stored on ATA. Of course, EMC recommends against this, however if you know your data well and how you use your snaps, it works well and is a supported configuration. Replication Options: Celerra replicator is functionally equivelent to Snapmirror, not much to comment, they both work well. NetApp does have snapvault however, which allows you to keep multiple snaps in a remote appliance. To achieve this you need replication manager from EMC Just my 2C! Shoot me an email directly if you'd like to discuss further. hope that helps, Anthony virtualjack wrote: On Jun 9, 10:11 am, "Rob Turk" wrote: "Jack Stewart" wrote in message ... Does anyone have (relatively recent) experience with both a NetApp NAS & EMC Celerra? If so, I'ld appreciate any comments that you might have. Our management is looking into replacing our NAS3020 with a Celerra NS40G. Thanks in advance! What is your management hoping to gain from this switch? The 3020 is still a current machine, does it fail to perform it's duties in some way? Rob Their main motivation is that they are hoping to leverage the Clarion infrastructure and our considerably larger relationship with Dell/EMC. Unfortunately EMC doesn't seem to be willing to give us any type of demo Celerra unit at this time so my analysis is strictly based on their documentation and answers from the Sales Engineers (who frankly don't seem to understand the product very well). So real world experience of the Celerra is what I'm most looking for. People who have migrated from one to another (either way) would be fabulous, but even plain real world experience of the Celerra would help (EMC also hasn't located a decent Customer reference yet). The 3020 is working fine although ndmpd backups are not going as fast as we would like - it is probably more of an issue with the backup system - although I'm beginning to think that my RAID group & Aggregate configuration is sub-optimal. ---Jack P.S. Sorry for the change in headers, my Palm newsreader foobar'ed this article. P.S. Based on what I've read so far, the Celerra has a more feature rich CIFS implementation. The spare "head/cpu board" is a nice feature as are the disjoint CIFS/ Unix ACL's. On the other hand, the Celerra seems more wasteful of disk allocation and more difficult to manage in our environment which is script based. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NetBench on a NetApp filer | [email protected] | Storage & Hardrives | 3 | June 30th 06 03:05 AM |
Cost of a shelf in a NetApp filer | [email protected] | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | May 16th 06 06:44 PM |
Converintg NetApp Netcache to NetApp Filer | Ronen A | Storage & Hardrives | 1 | June 27th 05 11:09 AM |
netapp used 760 filer wanted | grey | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | October 29th 03 11:58 PM |
Scripting under Netapp-Filer | Marco | Storage & Hardrives | 1 | September 4th 03 09:06 PM |