I'd have to mostly agree with Dennis again (must be my day to agree with Dennis). NetAPP has been claiming that but you had to look at the supported configuration: it must be on the Windows cluster HCL to be a valid configuration. That meant that the NetApp had to be fiber connected vs. IP connected in 2000. That makes it a SAN configuration :)
Deji, I don't think that NAS levels the playing field for Exchange users from a cost entry point. A cluster configuration on the cluster HCL is one that almost always comes from the vendor in a pre-stated configuration - i.e. a cluster in a box. As for storage, http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/sanet?c=us&cs=04&l=en&; s=bsd is about 8k more than a NAS storage device, but you'll notice it's aimed at those needing about half the storage capacity. It is not positioned for HA cluster solutions. In fact, you won't find any iSCSI solutions positioned at iSCSI on the Dell website (at least I couldn't; you may have better luck). http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/solutions/en/clustering_h a?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~tab=4 The clustering HCL is very specific about what you can use. It's also intended to be in that exact configuration of parts and not mixed and matched components of multiple cluster hcl qualified parts if you ever want to be in a supported mode. Since I only looked at Dell, it's fair to read Microsoft's own take on the cluster and iSCSI information http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;839686 Looks like the same story that they had with NetApp earlier except that they will support it for non-clustered servers (heck, they may even recommend it). In short, no it doesn't help :) But thanks. Al -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Depp, Dennis M. Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: NAS and WSS I don't understand your comment about Exchange clustering requiring a SAN. All Exchange clustering requires is a shared disk. This can be a direct attached SCSI drives that are shared between the two machine. Several companies make these devices. I don't think WSS made the playing field more level for small companies at all. NetApp has been claiming a NAS solution that works with Exchange since Exchange 2000. However, Microsoft would not support it until Exchange 2003. By this time they were talking about WSS and a Microsoft solution to run Exchange on a Microsoft version of NAS. I would still not run Exchange on NAS. It is still very new and with few proven installations. I would prefer to continue to use direct attached drives (even w/ a cluster) and wait to see what the fall out brings. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: NAS and WSS Does this help? http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/f/a/afa939d4-6ec4-482d-9fc6-4e5b91c 5 43b2/Exch_StorWSS3.doc How about this? http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/wss2003/productinformation/prod g uide/default.mspx Does it help to remind you that WSS is a "special" (OK, stripped down) Windows Server 2003 version and any Win2K3-compliant AV will work adequately on WSS as well, without any acrobatic jujitsu? Does it help to state that, for good or bad, people do Cluster Exchange? And that one of the biggest gripes about Exchange Clustering is the fact that most small-time shops could not affod the high cost of the SAN infrastructure hitherto required to join the Clusting Club? And that WSS with Feature Pack specifically addresses this issue and made the playing field more level? >>>WSS may have solved this, but it's something to check Does it help to state that "you are sooooo right"? :) Sincerely, Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE MCSA MCP+I Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.readymaids.com - we know IT www.akomolafe.com Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Mulnick, Al Sent: Wed 7/28/2004 6:18 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: NAS and WSS I have to say that Dennis makes some very good points. One that wasn't made as the concept of anti-virus. This has been a sticking point for many of the NAS devices for years. I haven't heard how WSS gets past that, but in the end, it seems cheaper and more reliable for adding a few devices, to just use the full-blown OS so I can add anti-virus applications. WSS says it has support for this, but how is that support implemented. Some past solutions were so stripped down or mutated OS's that you had to deploy extra Windows Servers for the Anti-virus. Exchange on a NAS? Why? What would be the point? Would it be because you only have 30 users anyway? If you want to scale it, as Dennis mentions, Disk is critical. Anything over 150 users and I personally would consider the effort not worth the result. Besides, the Exchange team was forced into that solution. Not sure I'd like to be the customer that proves to upper management that it wasn't a sound technical decision, but rather a business decision only. Personally, I have yet to see the value of a NAS device in many organizations. It's supposed to be cheap space for those low performance applications such as file and print. I can solve that so much more easily, cheaply, and more completely without NAS. If you need to provision TB of data that is relatively static and doesn't have reliability concerns, NAS is a cheaper way to provision it vs. SAN but compared to straight OS, it's often cheaper and easier to use the straight OS out of the box since you'll inevitably want some auditing solution (sarbox?) that NAS is going to have more issues with. WSS may have solved this, but it's something to check. Al -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Depp, Dennis M. Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 3:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: NAS and WSS I haven't used WSS, but I have used its predesessor which ran on Windows 2000 embedded. From an Active Directory perspective, it looks like any other member server. I would hope with WSS they would make a change so the OS looks like it is a WSS server. The NIC bottle neck would depend on how much data you are trying to push and what type of network you have. I have the benefit of GigE for all my server. This has not been an issue. The number of users per device would depend on how much each user is using this machine. In the SATA vs. SCSI, most of the data on the NAS is probably static with a small percentage of the data actually being changed regularly. In this senario I like the SATA drives much better than SCSI. While the SCSI provides better performance, when dealing with user data, I usually want quantity not quality. I would never place an Exchange database on NAS. I think I would quit first! This might be OK for a smaller shop. Exchange is very disk intensive. You need to think about the performance hit of placing your Exchange data on a NAS device. Also most corruption in the Exchange databases occurs because of problems writing to the disk. Do you want to add network traffic as another area to check? My personnal preference is to avoid the Windows based NAS devices. (or any NAS device for that matter) We have about 4500 employees and I try to keep the OS landscape as simple as possible. There will be peculiarities with the WSS devices. If you plan on installing several of these deivices, then it may be worth it. If you only plan to install 1 or 2, I would stay with Windows 2003. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ActiveDir] OT: NAS and WSS Hello all - I am looking to expand the amount of storage space on the network and am considering a NAS solution running Windows Storage Server 2003 (WSS). I am looking for feedback on NAS in general and WSS in particular. Are there any AD or licensing issues with WSS? (My hunch is that AD views this as just another member server). Dell offers an OEM version. Any issues there? It seems that the NIC would be a huge bottleneck. Is that the case? Do people run these as multihomed hosts? If just using it for file service (as opposed to hosting a database), how many users do you figure per NAS device? Many of the NAS devices seem to be SATA. How does this perform compared to SCSI? I know that you are supposed to be able to stick an Exchange database on NAS but is anyone really using this? It seems the timing demands might be too much for it. Thanks. nme ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ Noah M. Eiger EIS Consulting for PRBO Conservation Science 510-717-5742 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
