IBM vs. NetApp SAN

[kriskros]

Hi,
I also posted this in the NetApp forum as it applies to both.

I am looking to purchase a SAN solution to provide the storage for a blade centre. Initially starting with 2-3 blades attached to the SAN, all running SQL server and some Java app.
I've looked in detail at the IBM DS4300, done some testing and received some good results. However, am getting the hard sell on Netapp(probably FAS3020). Claims that iSCSI will surpass FC speeds due to channel bonding and that sort of thing. Certainly the copy features and interface on the Netapp look more modern. Anyone have any experience on the price/performance ratio? Additionally, the costing, reliability and general impressions?

 

[RMGBELGIUM]

I'd suggest : if you have IBM servers, go for IBM storage (like DS4300,DS6800) because when you have performance problems, Netapp will say it's an IBM problem.We've done the test with the FAS940, their heaviest machine at the time, with NFS which they claimed was the fastest combination ever seen , and didn't get the results as they claimed ( they claimed to get 120 Kb/sec, we got 38kb max per second).Explanation from Netapp : "a bad marraige between IBM AIX and netapp"."the problem lies with IBM").
And the cost of iscsi vs FC,there's allmost no difference.Don't let them make you crazy with there "snapcopy and snap restore" toys either.It's all nice to have, our w2k people use the Netapp flashcopy, and 1 out of 5 snaps is a success.respons from Netapp " It will be solved in the next version...".
I still want to see them produce a consistent database after restoring such a snap, being sqlserver or oracle...

Just my experiences with Netapp ...


rgds,

R.

 

[kriskros]

Thanks for the reply. The SNAPcopy and SNAPrestore were certainly one of the Netapp's big selling points. I understand with IBM's flashcopy that you can't get a good live SQL backup without stopping all sql services. Netapp claim that's not neccesary with SNAPcopy/manager. But if that's not reliable either...
Regarding speed a quick search around the web seems to say that getting good throughput depends on having high performance NICs(with TOE) or high end iSCSI initiators(I'm not too familiar with the technology). If this is the case, as you say, the pricing will surely be in the same territory as fibre hba's etc. anyway.

 

[xmsre]

See response to your post in Network Appliance Disk and RAID Solutions forum. This post makes no mention of the application, although it does state that the connectivity was via NFS. This has nothing to do with iSCSI or SQL. You're comparing apples to oranges.