STORAGE 5

[zacksack]

First of all sorry about the length but I would appreciate any advice anyone might have.

First let me explain our current set up

We have three domains each with their own file servers, all physically located in the same building. Two of DC’s are still NT 4 boxes, we’re going to upgrade the 2 NT 4 boxes to 2003 and then collapse the three domains into one. As I mentioned each domain has there own file servers but we also have files on 4 or 5 other boxes. Our idea is to eliminate all file servers to centralize it. We have many issues right now, storage (we’re running out rapidly), backup – it’s taking way to long and its getting more and more difficult to manage.

We currently have about 400GB’s combined on our file servers. So I think if we went with 2TB to start that would be plenty.

Does anyone have any suggestions were to start? We have no idea what we should go with and the pro’s and cons of each option – SAN, NAS, iSCSI .

One of our biggest issues is backup, we are backing up to tape but it’s taking way to long. Our exchange (5.5) box is taking about 36 hours to backup! And there is only a total of 60GB’s. One thing that worry’s me about centralizing our data is back up time.

Does anyone know of a topology I could view which might show a typical configuration?

Thanks everyone

Brad

 

[xmsre]

Get a SAN. You can present block modevia either iSCSI or FCP to various servers. Many SANs have some integrated NAS capability, so you could either present LUNs block mode to a traditional windows file server, or use the integrated CIFS depending on the functionality you need.

 

[Breslau]

NAS & iSCSI (if you run it on your LAN) rely on an unreliable transport agent (tcp/ip) to access storage. so, in principle, you won't get the performace numbers you could with FC. BUT they are a cheaper solution to get into than a SAN. you wouldn't have to purchase a switch or switches to set it up.

FC (in most cases this means SCSI over FC) is more stable in terms of connectivity. it was designed from the get-go to carry block level I/O. better peformance, but like i said, higher initial costs.

however, if your needs are small, you can go small with your switch(es) and storage and save on your start up costs. we're talking single switch here, so if you want/need redundancy, then naturally the price will be higher.

if you go this route, i'd get everything (hba's, storage, and switches) at 4 gig, simply becasue that generation is hiting the streets now and would keep you covered for the next couple of years, as opposed to the previous gen of 2 gig.

what tape device(s) are you using for backup?

 

[zacksack]

Thanks a lot for all your suggestions

 

[comtec17]

My first question would be;

What is your budget?

Then I would ask, how is your Network and what is the throughput?

Then, what applications besides fileserver data are you runnning on these servers?

If this is only Fileserver data, then NAS is the way to go.

 

[Backup3xpert]

I have to agree w/comtec17 - a SAN will always be the ideal solution for storage but most medium and small businesses are either incapable or unwilling to eat the cost of introducing fiber for a true SAN .. I would definitely think along the lines of Ethernet Attached Storage. iSCSI solutions are leveling the playing field between NAS and SAN and at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Backup3xpert]

A NAS works with the existing Ethernet infrastructure, and is a very simple and affordable addition to the network. Until recently, you needed a costly, complicated Fibre Channel infrastructure to implement even the simplest SAN. The cost to install a FC SAN storage device is at least 10 times the cost of a comparable NAS device.

The addition of an iSCSI SAN will give you all the benefits of a FC SAN and a NAS combined in a single unit and is an incredibly affordable (dedicated storage area network) that simply connects to your existing IP network. Attach a tape drive or library to a physical SCSI adapter on the back-end of the iSCSI device (iSCSI being the front-end/SCSI being the back-end) for backup purposes and next to a FC SAN, what could be better than that?

Attaches like a NAS/Delivers performance of an FC SAN

 

[zacksack]

Lets assume cost isnt issue. I have several quotes from several different vendors regarding implementing a SAN. Exec's are aware of the cost and are not worried providing of course its the best solution

We want to simplfy

We want the best performance

Is there any issues with a SAN and SQL?

Thanks again

 

[Backup3xpert]

An O.S. independent iSCSI SAN will support Exchange and SQL as well as all the popular Operating Systems and applications.

 

[comtec17]

90% of customer with a SAN will never see more than 5% utilization on an FC switch. Most servers today could not push 100MB/s. The only item you need to be careful of is if your server is either Throughput bound (I/O) or bandwidth (MB/s) If the application is I/O intense, like a heavily utilized Exchange server, FC may be best.

 

[Backup3xpert]

When you finally decide which direction you will go in, just remember that scrutiny in research of the perfect appliance(s) and available options should ultimately sway you. Most companies selling backup and storage will have products that function similary and stay in the same ball park price wise when it comes to hardware.

My top 3 companies I look at when helping clients look for backup/storage solutions are

*Cybernetics (One of the BEST yet unknown companies in the biz w/a host of awesome products)
*EMC (a GIANT in the industry)
*Overland (who does a decent job of competing with my top two)

I have dealt with many more companies than those 3 but they are the ones that top my list for a variety of reasons. I prefer to go w/an actual manufacturer whose dedicated specialty is backup/storage ONLY! They know backup/storage like no other.

Larger companies like the Dell's and HP's buy from manufacturers like them and slap their name on the devices. So you know when it's time for tech support you run into all sorts of red tape and misc runarounds. Then you have a limited time to be able to deal with tech support, in most cases 90 days, then you get charged plus often the support techs are outsourced and in India. (except my top listed choice who provides free support always and is here in the U.S. - something my clients love about them)

Lots of pro's and cons to dealing with anyone but over the years my personal best experiences have been with those above. I deal only with one person at both Cybernetics & EMC but Overland sometimes rubs me the wrong way by having me deal with people that are not familiar with me.

Just a few ideas for you.

{]::: G3N!u$ :::[}

“One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius” (Simone de Beauvoir).

 

[xmsre]

I prefer NetApp myself, as do the majority of participants at the Gartner Storage Summit 2006; they just voted NetApp #1 as the vendor best at delivering on the promise of simplifying storage. More importantly, the participants also ranked NetApp highest in the poll on which company is delivering the best value for your storage dollar.

Then again, everyone has an opinion. My advice would be to check with a wide variety of vendors and shop around.
This would include NetApp, EMC, HP, and HDS as well as the other vendors mentioned in this thread.

 

[rickkcir1]

You'd probably meet your perforamnce with a mix of CIFS/NAS and iSCSI....

If you stick a turbocharger/supercharger in your car/truck, how much faster would you get to work? You wouldn't because I'd bet a couple of cold ones you drive the speed limit. Most people think they need FC SAN when iSCSI does just fine... though obviously FC SAN in the appropriate environment will beat out IP at 1GB today ( 10GB is right around the corner)..

Unless you're pushing your environment hard, look at an combined iSCSI/NAS solution... NetApp, BlueArc , SnapServer, etc..

 

[Breslau]

Attaches like a NAS/Delivers performance of an FC SAN"

fundamentally speaking, running storage over tcp/ip will not deliver the peformance of FC. the protocols were designed with transmission errors and out-of-order delivery in mind. and i wouldn't get too excited about 10 Gb ethernet, never seen an ethernet network perform anywhere near its stated rate.

having said that, i think the iSCSI solution would work just fine for the poster.. it's all about what you really need.

if your backups are slowing your servers down, you could copy your data over to another area of disk and have another box handle the actual backup process, OR implement an enterprise backup solution such as TSM, but we're talking bucks here.

 

[xmsre]

1. Depends on the block size. At a 4K IO, the advante is to iSCSI on 1Ge. As the block size increases, it clearly shifts to 2G FCP. Of course 4G FCP is out now, but then again 10Ge is just around the corner. You'll find a few good comparisions of the two up on snia.org.

2. Or snapshots and a replication strategy. The advantage of TSM was perpetual incremental backups. Snapshots and replication will get you the same thing. The problem with the TSM agent was some insanely inefficient things they do in the cifs code (20 hours to catalog, 5 hours to backup the delta).

 

[rickkcir1]

One thing I think many people miss... It's not how fast the engine is, but how fast the environment allows?

Not everyone needs 2, but less 4GB FC.... iSSCI... even NAS for some applciations works best...

Otherwise... it'd be a no brainer, and eveyone would tech refresh for 4gb/sec FC

We haven't even discussed the benefits of specific vendors..... snapshots, mirroring, etc, are not created equal.... nor is NAS

 

[Breslau]

You'll find a few good comparisions of the two up on snia.org."

links?

i poked around their website but just found some rah-rah sales pitch presentations for iscsi implementations.