To SAN or not to SAN? What servers are you using?

[NB9457]

Hi All,

 

We are well overdue a new server infrastructure here, but the big question is, do we really need another SAN?

 

A bit of background info, we currently have a blade system connected via DAS to two SANs. Nothing is visualised and to virtualise it as it is, would require wiping the current SAN, which is something I'm not willing to do. It's also worth noting the SAN has previously suffered a catastrophic failure, needing 3 new HDDs and new controller to come back to life and all data was lost. As it stands, I have no trust in the system.

 

Now, cost is obviously an issue, the lower we keep it, the more money we can spend on curriculum IT.

 

So, I was thinking of a 3 server system to replace the currently 10 or so physical we have, with local storage and a load of RAM, then have our staff storage on one, SIMS on another and students on another and then just scatter about the other servers randomly across the 3 servers, then re-purpose one of our old servers to run Hyper-V replication of core servers. Surely a system like this could end being a lot cheaper and maybe even have better reliability than having one SAN? I understand I may not be able to live migrate, but we aren't an Enterprise, so as long as we plan updates, this shouldn't be a massive loss.

 

Any suggestions/input is welcomed. Also any info on how you run your School would be helpful and help me to explore other options.

[pow]

Look at the Dell VRTX, I run one and it's a fantastic bit of kit, cluster in a box. It's been rock solid for 2.5 years now, not so much as a blip, just handles the Hyper-V failover cluster withotu breaking a sweat.

[NB9457]

Look at the Dell VRTX, I run one and it's a fantastic bit of kit, cluster in a box. It's been rock solid for 2.5 years now, not so much as a blip, just handles the Hyper-V failover cluster withotu breaking a sweat.

 

I have heard good things, but I'll be honest, the whole AIO things still kind of scares me.

 

What are they like price wise as I've a feeling they may be a bit much for us!

[Linfit]

We had an EMC SAN fitted as part of our new build in 2011 and I thought it was overspecced and too complex for our requirements. It ran Citrix Xencentre and Xen desktop virtualising Servers and VDI collections. I was never happy with it (it was specced and fitted by a well known IT outsourcing company who had the contract to fit out the new builds) and in 2015 we replaced it with a VRTX, everything running on Hyper-V. Much simpler, cheaper than buying a new SAN, and as pow says, rock solid. Of course, your other option is to use local storage on your existing or new servers, which these days seems to be a good option. I very much agree with you on the SAN, I was never happy whilst we had ours.

[pow]

With the VTRX you need a georedudant backup plan that's all

[yac2016]

I would do exactly what you have stated and have done. No real need for a SAN and with storage to Office365 and Google drive it's even less needed. Saves you the money to be spent on a quality VM backup solution and setup replication using Hyper-V. Not a fan of AIO solutions either with the pricing I have seen, easy to get 3 hosts with local storage and plenty of RAM.

[Geoff]

We have VSAN, running on a mix of self built Supermicro kit and bespoke purchased Dell servers. Our DR is Azure Site Recovery.

[Norphy]

It’s well worth looking at the Stone Integrum kit, another AIO solution. It was very keenly priced when I got a quote for it a few months back. Cost less than some SANs with a similar amount of storage in fact.

[PotNoodleTech]

Nope. I am dead against SANs. All they do is add a massive amount of initial cost, a massive amount of ongoing cost, a massive amount of complexity in order to promise that extra 0.05% of extra uptime (that's right, we're talking once every 5 year downtime).

 

In a primary or average size secondary they are totally not worth the money. IMHO.

[cpjitservices]

Latest FreeNAS.

 

Excellent product. Run son our own hardware.