nas storage

[jjohnsoncantell]

Greetings,

 

Not sure if this is the right place to post but would like advice on upgrading our nas box. We currently have an HPAiO1200 3tb server running 2003 storage server. Its getting on now and im looking at swapping it out in the next year or so. There are lots of nas boxes out there and I would like to know if anyone has something they would recommend. Im probably looking at doubling the storage to futureproof but that also raises the topic of how to backup such a large amount of data.

 

All comments/advice welcome.

 

Thanks

James

[VeryPC_Ed]

Hey James, are you just using the NAS as a filestore or are you planning on using it for anything like shared storage for virtualization ?

 

If you can let me know what your planning on doing with it / number of users / data being stored and any requirements for connectivity / management etc, I can have a look at options available (from us at least).

[mattx]

Build your own:

 

FreeNAS 8 | Storage For Open Source

 

Cheaper.

[sted]

if its for live data rather than say backup/administrator only files wouldnt a san be more approriate?

[Millgate]

So many different options for you to look at. Like Ed has mentioned, Very could help you out with this. Other brands to consider are Huawei, Netgear and HP. All very good bits of kit and all have offers on so you'll be able to get a good deal.

 

Every vendor has a specialist in this area so if you would like me to arrange a conf call with them, just say. It might be good to bounce ideas around. Let me know if you need anything

[tech_guy]

I've become very lazy and just order a QNAP when we need anything now. Easy to set up and manage.

[dhicks]

Build your own: FreeNAS 8 | Storage For Open Source

 

Seconded - FreeNAS is excellent. For backups, get a second, bigger storage server with at least 8GB of RAM and you should be able to get FreeNAS to do block-level deduplication.

[RTFM]

The Netgear NAS we put in at our primary hasnt missed a beat

[zag]

Qnap.

 

The end.

[Dos_Box]

Moving to Hardware forum.

[markcuk]

Thecus or Qnap or if you have some money look at these Nexsan SATABeast - High density SATA RAID storage for disc to disc backup

[jjohnsoncantell]

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry its taken a while to get back to this thread. We have about 1000 users although this is probably never gonna be more than 300 concurrent. We currently hold around 2tb of data. Its for live data, we daily backup to lto4 each night and a weekly every friday.

 

Would a SAN be overkill for this?

[RTFM]

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry its taken a while to get back to this thread. We have about 1000 users although this is probably never gonna be more than 300 concurrent. We currently hold around 2tb of data. Its for live data, we daily backup to lto4 each night and a weekly every friday.

 

Would a SAN be overkill for this?

 

Not necessarily, some people will say yes some people will say no.

 

Depends what your budget is, how many physical servers you have etc etc. There's a lot to consider, 2x NAS box in different parts of the school (one for live, one for backup) might be an option though? Then put from your backup NAS onto tape if thats what you want to do.......? Certainly a cheaper option than a SAN.

[VeryPC_Tom_M]

I'll drop you a PM, so that we can try and provide you with an appropriate solution.

[RTFM]

I'll drop you a PM, so that we can try and provide you with an appropriate solution.

 

We had a couple of VeryPC storage servers before we bought in our NetApp's and they were good for what we needed them for at the time so that's always an option over a NAS box if you speak to them about it

[Duke]

Would a SAN be overkill for this?

 

All SAN and NAS differentiate between is the way they're accessed and how the data is stored:

 

NAS = File-level storage, normally accessed via CIFS/SMB/NFS, the NAS device controls how the data is written to disk and the client just sends file-level commands

SAN = Block-level storage, normally accessed via iSCSI/FC, the client device has block-level access to the storage (in theory at least - in reality the SAN may do the actual writes and just present a block-level device to the client)

 

Whether you need a SAN or NAS very much depends on what you plan to do with it. If you need block-level storage (e.g. for virtual machines) then you need a SAN. If your clients directly access files on a Windows-based system then you probably want a NAS. If you want both then get Unified Storage that does everything (many devices offer this now).

 

Do you have any way or working out the IOPS on your current storage to make sure any new device will meet your needs?

 

Chris

[RTFM]

All SAN and NAS differentiate between is the way they're accessed and how the data is stored:

 

and cost?

 

For some reason in my head i imagine SAN's as a lot more expensive than NAS's

[Guest Guest]

Generally they are, yes, but that's because SANs are for enterprise and NAS tends to e backup/home.

 

Depending on the brand you might get a better iscsi stack too in the SAN where as I'm yet to see a NAS with anything other than open source software for the protocols.

[Duke]

and cost?

 

For some reason in my head i imagine SAN's as a lot more expensive than NAS's

 

No necessarily.

 

QNAP's do CIFS and iSCSI so are essentially NAS ans SAN and they're cheap. It's more about performance and how 'enterprise' it is these days. You can get a cheap QNAP, but ours struggled with high usage over CIFS and doesn't handle replication particularly well. Our Oracle S7410 on the other hand costs way more, but can handle our 1800 users.

[RTFM]

No necessarily.

 

QNAP's do CIFS and iSCSI so are essentially NAS ans SAN and they're cheap. It's more about performance and how 'enterprise' it is these days. You can get a cheap QNAP, but ours struggled with high usage over CIFS and doesn't handle replication particularly well. Our Oracle S7410 on the other hand costs way more, but can handle our 1800 users.

 

Yeah perhaps where my mind is going, we have 2x NetApp 2040's, compare this to a couple of Netgear NAS boxes we've used at primaries (not had a moments bother with them i might add) and that's where my mind is going when I think SAN and NAS and associated costs.

[Duke]

Yeah perhaps where my mind is going, we have 2x NetApp 2040's, compare this to a couple of Netgear NAS boxes we've used at primaries (not had a moments bother with them i might add) and that's where my mind is going when I think SAN and NAS and associated costs.

 

I think it doesn't help that for a long time consumer-oriented devices were advertised as NAS, while the big players (NetApp, HP, IBM, EMC, etc.) advertised their products as SAN. Most of the bigger players are advertising things as 'Unified Storage' now as the controllers can handle SAN and NAS.

 

Anyway, back to James' question - work out your IOPS requirements, work out how fast your storage requirements are growing and how long you want this device to last for, work out your budget, work out whether you need (want?) NAS, SAN or both, then come back to us.

[jjohnsoncantell]

@Duke, no plans for virtualising in the future, plus we are all windows clients save for a couple of macs which are standalone. How would you suggest i go about getting those kinds of stats?

[jjohnsoncantell]

Thanks to everyone else for your opinions.. I dont know if i would class us as enterprise level.. its a big jump between spending a couple of k to spending over double that for file sharing

[Duke]

If you don't need to spend lots then don't, but also balance out how much it would 'cost' your business if the device fails (i.e. is paying extra for a redundant power supply better than having 24hrs downtime until you get a replacement).

 

Does you current storage offer any kind of performance metrics? I'm not overly familiar with Storage Server, but I assume it has some kind of performance/resource monitor like normal Windows?

 

Cheers,

Chris

[jjohnsoncantell]

I would always spend the extra for an rpsu. Yes its just windows server with a few extra options, ive never really looked into performance metrics before.