Virtualization

[tmcd35]

Less of a single point of failure than a server hosting the VMs on local disks.

 

I can see Zag's point. If the SAN/NAS goes down then that's *ALL* the VM's on *ALL* the servers, where as if a single host goes down then only those servers are effected.

 

I still prefer the central storage though. I think the benefits and control it gives out ways the risks (shame I can't afford a mirrored SAN ).

[DaveCoop]

But the fault tolerance of the SAN going down is very minor one as we have spec'd redundancy through the fibre channels into the different servers taken into a account the raid array on the SAN given al this the chances of a full system failure is one in a million or less than 2 servers sitting redundant for x amount of years. I'm sticking with my SAN thanks.

[Theblacksheep]

I can see Zag's point. If the SAN/NAS goes down then that's *ALL* the VM's on *ALL* the servers, where as if a single host goes down then only those servers are effected.

 

I still prefer the central storage though. I think the benefits and control it gives out ways the risks (shame I can't afford a mirrored SAN ).

 

Absolutely, but then we are talking about objects as a whole. Seperating parts and software failure is worth a look. The sans wont have a big OS to muck up, it'll probably have 2 power supplies and management controllers.... and all it has is disks. Lots less to go wrong with the SAN and probably better inbuilt redundancy, depends on San I suppose.

 

Would like a mirrored SAN too. Budget cuts are deep this year, I have a spare San but no disks : (

[Tallwood_6]

Data in a SAN will often be in a raid 6, 10 or 50 which will tollerate multiple disk failures, will have multiple controllers which will be connected to multiple switches with multple paths to the hosts. If you are still paranoid then you can purchase 3/4 hour call out warrenties for the SAN or an additional unit for replication.

So with a decent SAN and correct setup then you have little to be worried about.