Re: when to nas or san
- From: Faeandar <mr_castalot@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 04:10:45 GMT
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 00:40:51 +0100, m0rk <no@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>We have a wan of w2k servers, several locations, all varying degrees of
>storage on HP servers ... the main HQ currently have a 1TB array of
>disks that has about 100gb free currently ...
>
>They are looking at a SAN solution to give them somewhere between 10-
>16TB for the next few years ...
>
>Anyone have any good pointers to documents on when to use Nas or a San
>solution or the merits, problems differences, etc ... ?
Wow, that's an extremely open ended question that will elicit such
responses as:
1) depends on the application
2) nas for file access, san for block access
3) nas can do it all
4) san can do it all
5) databases must use san's
6) real databases should use nas
7) good god man, give us some more info than just capacity
Personally I go for 7 but hey, that's just me. I have found that
people/groups who jump right to "we're looking at SAN as the strategic
direction of our company" are generally clueless about storage.
They've heard enough about to think that it's "sexy" (or at least as
sexy as IT gets) and want in on it.
My thoughts are that SAN is a niche technology and that most things
can be done very well by NAS. NAS is easier to manage, install,
provision, etc. It offers alot of functionality with minimal
complexity. That being said....
The niche's that I think SAN fills are high end performance, OLTP,
certain engineering and scientific simulations and calculations, etc.
So the niche is big money. Hence the reason SAN's are so touted by
vendors, imo.
In any case, you'll get plenty of posts on this one I'm sure.
~F
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Testing performance of storage
- Next by Date: Re: Testing performance of storage
- Previous by thread: Re: MSA1000 CLI Simulator ?
- Next by thread: Re: when to nas or san
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
