Hardware Thread, SAN Solution in Technical; HI All,
I was wondering if it would be possible for the collective hiv mind of edugeek to help us ...
24th June 2008, 10:14 AM #1
I was wondering if it would be possible for the collective hiv mind of edugeek to help us out with a possible implementation of a san.
Has anyone implemented a san in there school?
We looking to link the san to all our servers and ibm blade centre this will be done via fibre channel card and a fibre switch.
What is the best solution for running the servers all off the san or having a local disk ruuning the os and mount the san windows/linux etc?
Does any one have a picture so i can visualise how everything fit together?
Thanks for your help in advance
IDG Tech News
24th June 2008, 11:15 AM #2
Sounds a bit overkill for a school, just out of interest, what are you trying to improve?
24th June 2008, 11:20 AM #3
We're trying to do a number of things
consolidate data as were nearing 3 tb of stuff.
virtualisation so the images need run off the san.
24th June 2008, 11:36 AM #4
Will you want a full blown Fibre Attached SCSI or iSCSI?
Are you going to be running software like VMware’s ESX, which will give you the most benefits from centralised storage?
Also will you want more than one SAN replicated perhaps in a different location on site to provide redundancy?
24th June 2008, 11:50 AM #5
Full blown Fibre attached SCSI.
Originally Posted by RobFuller
We will be running KVM Virtualisation as red hat has killed support for Xen adn the bonus it's free.
We will need a sas/sata split as we will use sata for storage and sas to run the vm images off.
We will be backing up the new san to our old nas
24th June 2008, 12:07 PM #6
I would not go down the route of fibre channels as this is way too expensive at the moment.
We are looking at the Hitachi SMS100 which is just a sealed unit and carries a 5 year guarantee.
This is connected to 2 Gig managed switches for failover via cat6 and all servers are connected to these switches with 2 connections using cat6 cabling.
Throughput is 4Gbps and the unit will give us 6.75Tb using raid 6 will give us 6.75Tb formatted space over 12 sata discs to do what we want with.
All this for approx 6K. We will be moving forward with this over the next few months.
hope this has helped.
24th June 2008, 12:18 PM #7
Why use full blown Fibre SCSI when only using SATA drives, you would really want SAS 10K or higher to benefit.
Perhaps iSCSI over fibre would be better; like jinnantonnix said even cooper is an option to start with.
Would defiantly have your guest os booting from the SAN but your hosts having their own disks to boot from. ESX3i now integrates onto a chip so you don’t even need HD anymore.
Make sure you plan how many machines you’re going to virtualizes and what resources they need, make sure you have enough ram in your hosts then make sure you have plenty spare capacity as you will us it and the price does start climbing when you ask for the bigger modules.
24th June 2008, 12:48 PM #8
I have an IBM fibre channel SAN connected to IBM servers (not blade ) we are running Novell Netware 6.5 + Cluster services. I can try to answer some questions if you would like. Just PM me
24th June 2008, 01:24 PM #9
I have just gone for an iSCSI SAN with the following:
HP Blades x 3 with 2 x Intel Quad Cores, 12Gb Ram, 2 x 73Gb SAS in a c3000 Chasis
HP MS2000i 12 disk array (6 SAS and 6 SATA) 6.3Tb dual controllers
VMWare ESX Server
All warranties with 4 hour same day on site and all licenses for the next 3 years.
Total Cost: £21k
Fibre Channel equivalent: £36k <-- Far to much money for a school and no real performance gain in a school environment over iSCSI
We will be virtualising 14 servers and keeping just the 2 DC's and the Exchange server as physical servers.
Will be using our 2 old NAS servers (1TB Each) for backups and snapshots at the other end of the school as part of an amended DR stratergy.
24th June 2008, 03:11 PM #10
The reason for going fibre to begin with is we are able to afford it.
We're looking to maximise speed as we will be using it heavily for virtualisation and citirix.
With fibre it will be completely separate from our network.
24th June 2008, 03:52 PM #11
@penfold_99: Yes I agree fibre is good in that sense however I plan to replicate the seperate network the fibre can provide via the use of VLANs which should result in the same.
24th June 2008, 04:05 PM #12
Did look at EMCs CX3 SANs which used fibre channel disks front end and sata 10k disks backend. Utilizing VMware ESX it came to approx 45k which we cannot afford at this moment but need to implement a storage solution this year hence have gone for a cheaper solution which will cover us for the next 5 years which will lead nicely to BSF and it will no longer be my problem.
24th June 2008, 04:12 PM #13
We're currently looking at the ibm ds3400 with 4 fibre cards and 3tb split 70/30 for sata/sas and it's coming in about 6-8k.
For virtualisation we are looking at kvm as it free which will save us a hat full of money.
24th June 2008, 08:51 PM #14
Eh? Drat, that could cause me problems as I've just moved all our machines to CentOS + Xen... Any more details on the above?
Originally Posted by penfold_99
24th June 2008, 09:33 PM #15
It seems quite recent news. more info here:
Originally Posted by dhicks
Red Hat adopts KVM: what happens to Xen now? | virtualization.info
Seems xen getting sold off to citrix didn't sit too well for rhel, developing a rivals product...
in the comments: http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/
What happens to Xen now? What happens to the Red Hat investment on it?
The official press announcement don't say it explicitly but the choice of words lets clearly understand that Xen is the past and KVM is the future.
It's unknown if Red Hat will continue to support Xen or what will happen to those enterprise customers that adopted RHEL 5 to use the hypervisor (mostly because Xen and KVM virtual machines are incompatible).
In any case it's unlikely that Red Hat will drop Xen tomorrow: the company sits in the Xen advisory board and its support policy implies that any distribution must be supported for seven years.
Red Hat may want to spend this time convincing its customers that KVM is a better virtualization engine: Virtual Machine Manager, for example, has been already re-categorized as a desktop user interface for managing virtual machines.
Last edited by CyberNerd; 24th June 2008 at 09:39 PM.
Thanks to CyberNerd from:
By Wirral_Wonderer in forum Wireless Networks
Last Post: 8th May 2008, 08:26 PM
By Samson in forum Wireless Networks
Last Post: 2nd October 2007, 09:08 PM
By LukeC in forum Windows
Last Post: 5th July 2007, 09:29 AM
By edsa in forum Network and Classroom Management
Last Post: 16th April 2007, 08:09 PM
By nicholab in forum Hardware
Last Post: 2nd February 2007, 10:48 AM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)