Page Threads

Post a new thread

Showing 3 threads

May 18 2009, 2:01 AM EDT by andreaserson

Thread started: May 16 2009, 10:22 AM EDT Watch

I am fairly new to the advanced storage solutions and I thought I had a decent understanding of the technologies. We currently have a Fibre Channel SAN in our environment which is directly connected to a PE2950 via a Fibre HBA. We currently have the entire 3.7TB of space allocated to this single server and created a share on that Volume which we then mapped to 15 - 20 users who process their work. In a technology meeting with management, a new person working within the group stated the following which I am failing to understand. I am hoping someone with more advanced storage experience will be able to either explain why this is so or why he is totally wrong. Thanks in advance.

The best configuration for any ediscovery application on an enterprise or multinode level whether it is for processing, forensics or something else is to load source data to NAS and to deliver output to the same.

I have researched this extensively over the last 3 to 4 years. That said there are specific advantages to maintaining data integrity, access to files and other things where a NAS is a better solution. That said, for pure file storage, regardless of the seemingly favorable comparisons between SAN and NAS arrays, for the kind of work we do NAS for storage is ideal.

Do you find this valuable?

Keyword tags:

Post reply

Show Last Reply

Last Reply:
RE: SAN v s NAS
By: andreaserson, May 18 2009, 2:01 AM EDT

Yes, I am in full support of your current solution. Since you have very powerful hardware in your PE2950 it will for sure outperform pretty much any NAS on the market as long as you don't use it for any other taxing workload. And a 4GB FC SAN should most definately perform better than most local storage than a dedicated NAS would have. Dedicated NAS-boxes often has just your run-of-the-mill lowend server parts that runs it's stripped down OS.

And since your solution can act as a NAS in pretty much every way there isn't any advantage in a dedicated NAS except perhaps price, rack space and most likely setup time. But since you already have your setup up and running all of those factors don't really matter do they.

Since the file-level access to a dedicated NAS or your current "NAS"-solution would most likely be the same I don't see that anything on the client could make any difference. And I don't know of any technology that would improve a NAS-solution that reside on the client side either.

There could actually even be an advantage to have your solution instead of a dedicated NAS if you use Win2008 and Vista on your clients since you could use SMB 2.0 which would probably improve performance significantly. Add jumbo frames capability to the mix (every part of the network between your clients and your PE2950 must support it) and you would have pretty much the best possible performance possible in a NAS scenario. Most dedicated NAS-boxes don't support SMB 2.0 since they are not based on Win2008. That will change when dedicated NAS-boxes are released with the new Windows Storage Server 2008.

Take a look at Dells NAS solutions and you'll se that the most powerful ones are somewhat similiar to your solution.

Should also mention the latest trend with a hybrid NAS/SAN. A networked storage unit that can give both file- and block-level access.

Do you find this valuable?

Shoshi68

SBS2008

Jan 9 2009, 4:55 AM EST by jibyjacob

golflnkstr

setting service tag so that it returns with dmidecode

Jul 21 2008, 9:04 AM EDT by golflnkstr

Location: Blogs Chats and RSS

Page Threads

Related Content