Hardware Thread, SAN Solution in Technical; Originally Posted by Dos_Box
10/100 Switches fro £800. Cisco really live in the 1990's don't they. Personally i wouldn't go ...
3rd February 2011, 05:01 PM #61
Noo this is a Gigabit Procurve, originally thought a 2810 but read somewhere that a 2910 was recommended for iSCSI (though that said another place went with v1910s which is completely the other end of the scale)
Originally Posted by Dos_Box
Quite annoying that HP have gone and changed the numbers on their kit, never seems to stay the same from one day to the next these days
4th February 2011, 10:39 AM #62
Hmm, this was just posted on The Register: SAN vs NAS: Spelling out the differences
Really, says who? Who is currently using it and what for - except for those wishing to migrate from Fibre Channel to Ethernet-based protocols? If you need bandwidth and aren't running FC then you've probably got 10Gbe kit already, and if so why wouldn't you go iSCSI? FCoE was big news when it was first announced but I've heard very little about it since, maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.
Fibre Channel over Ethernet looks set to become the de facto standard for storage over the next decade.
EDIT: Nope, not just me:
Data center fabric convergence: Many take the iSCSI route
FCoE is not ready but iSCSI is, so what’s the deal?
What? Why should there be any difference in performance and reliability between a SAN and a NAS? If you're running unified storage then you've got SAN+NAS on the same hardware and your reliability should be the same - arguably NAS will be more reliable because clients directly access the storage rather than going through another server which accesses that storage, so there's one less point of failure. Also, with modern storage, a proper NAS is likely to cost just as much as a SAN because you'll be paying for CIFS/SMB, NFS, HTTP, FTP, etc. licences, rather than just an iSCSI licence for SAN. Finally, why on earth would my choice between a SAN or NAS come down to whether I'm willing to 'pay the premium'? Surely the only deciding factor should be whether I want file-level or block-level access?
However, if you need to choose between SAN and NAS, the key difference to focus on is whether or not you need the top performance and reliability of a SAN and are prepared to pay the premium. If not, you need a NAS.
*grumbles and goes back to work*
Last edited by Duke; 4th February 2011 at 12:03 PM.
4th February 2011, 02:30 PM #63
Performance to the server rather than to the client, block level SAN to the server will be much faster for local ops and shareing out from the server than a NAS. Sure if you are looking from the NAS out to the client it may be a diferent story depending on the gear but for the server to storage comms block level is going to be quicker which is what they were trying to get across I think.
Originally Posted by Duke
4th February 2011, 02:34 PM #64
25th February 2011, 06:37 PM #65
- Rep Power
NAS starts at circa £50 in PC World - so I can see some logic in the statement NAS is cheap. You certainly dont get SANs for £50. This is missing the point - which is as you share data with more servers/ users - so the storage becomes more critical and needs to be more resilient, higher performance and probably more scalable. Whether SAN or NAS - you gets what you pay for.
3rd March 2011, 11:32 AM #66
- Rep Power
<Post edited for unauthorised advertising>
Please note only sponsors may use the forums in a commercial capacity. If you want further information please contact us.
Last edited by Dos_Box; 3rd March 2011 at 02:12 PM.
14th March 2011, 10:45 AM #67
Have a look at the Thecus range...cheap and do ISCSI and NFS..suitable for VMWARE...also support 10GB modules...Use SATA and SAS disks....
if you want higher end...have a look at the IBM XIV solutions...Used this for a 4500 user VDI deployment.......
17th May 2011, 03:36 PM #68
- Rep Power
I want to apologise for being inactive in this thread. I've been bogged down trying to help get Windows 7 working as a mandatory profile in a mixed XP/7 and 2003/2008 environment. It hasn't been easy.
This project was put on the back burners because of Windows 7, and has subsequently been cancelled due to a lack of funding. Oracle were seemingly the leading choice though.
7th June 2011, 11:28 AM #69
Not sure if anyone commented on the 42disks and the advantages, but having more disk like you have stated actually gives you very good I/O for your storage....this is particularly useful for database applications.....
Originally Posted by CHiLL
By owen1978 in forum Hardware
Last Post: 24th January 2011, 11:44 AM
By ljlbray in forum Wireless Networks
Last Post: 15th September 2010, 03:39 PM
By westleya in forum Our Advertisers
Last Post: 4th March 2010, 09:15 PM
By Chuckster in forum Hardware
Last Post: 15th January 2010, 07:22 PM
By penfold_99 in forum Hardware
Last Post: 25th June 2008, 07:27 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)