On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Dan Parsons wrote: > I'm looking into replacing our aging EMC SAN installation with > something else, and I thought I'd ping the list for suggestions. > Basically I'm looking for, preferably, one box that can do NFS really > well and also do fibre channel really well (mostly for ESX LUNs). I've > used NetApp gear in the past for both these purposes to great success, > and I'd happily try them again, but I suspect there might be some > newer, more agile companies out there with competitive alternatives > and better pricing.
To be honest, I haven't found one yet. :) I won't say that NetApp does FC SAN "really well". Functionally, it works perfectly, and since WAFL is below it, the added snapshot and cloning functionality is a nice value add. However, it's very expensive, not only because NetApp is a premium by itself, but the overhead of WAFL, then an FC container on top of that, and *then* a filesystem in the container means there's a lot of overhead vs. a standard SAN. Then there's the value-add of Snap Manager for Virtual Infrastructure. In fact, if you're going with a NetApp anyway, I would avoid FC altogether and just run your datastores on the filer via NFS. It's much more cost-effective, especially on a NetApp, and simpler to manage. Plus, you can get 10Gb performance out of it and save money by not buying a SAN (if it's just ESX you need it for). > The management interface counts for a lot too: I hate EMC's with a > fiery passion. Something web based is much, much better than a java > app that only works well on Windows. Well, I'm a command line guy, so I use OnTAP via SSH. I avoid GUIs when I can. > Aside from excelling at NFS and fc, and being "officially supported" > by VMware, Inc., flexibility in terms of being able to use both SATA > and FC/SAS disks where I like is a good plus too. Easy storage > expansion by adding more drive shelves is important. Enough > controllers with sufficient horsepower such that they can be slammed > by NFS but still serve up fibre channel without a hitch is important. > In terms of capacity, I'd probably need around 16TB usable to start, > and growing quickly from there. At the moment I think NetApp, assuming you can afford it, is the best at excelling (as much as possible) at all of those requirements. > So, any companies / products you can recommend along those lines, I'd > love to hear about. Thanks! As far as pure storage, my current favorite is Compellent, which Nick already mentioned. It's a fantastic box (we have one in our lab) and does an great job. The snapshots (they call them replays) are powerful, and the way it manages the disks is second to none. However, they don't currently do NFS, though it's coming with a bolt-on BSD appliance that does ZFS. Eventually it'll be built-in to their box (they run BSD under the covers). I'm not sure I trust ZFS enough for it yet, but with commercial support it should prosper quite well. -Adam _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
