SAN/Cluster choice?
We're a small forensic engineering company, curently running W2K servers and storing our data on a 2TB SATA array we built last year. We are thinking about providing better redundancy/100% up time for the files and have started requesting pricing on mirrored RAID5 solutions of 4-6 TB. Apple has a nice looking solution using two XServe RAID boxes connected to a dual core G5, however the G5 is still a single point of failure for accessing the data.
My own experience with clustering, well.. beyond whatever I've had to learn to pass different tests over the years I've never even touched a cluster of servers. Might anyone have thoughts on an 'entry' ( stop laughing! ) level cluster/SAN solution? I could cobble one together here by building another 2TB array( the one we built ran us $5200 a year ago including a basic W2K Server license ) and having a Windows Server mirror them but the Co President usually prefers brand name solutions with same day service, yada yada. I've been Googling about and find that the terminology on SAN vs NAS is inconsistent and that almost nobody speaks of clustering the file servers to allow for a failure there.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Paul
My own experience with clustering, well.. beyond whatever I've had to learn to pass different tests over the years I've never even touched a cluster of servers. Might anyone have thoughts on an 'entry' ( stop laughing! ) level cluster/SAN solution? I could cobble one together here by building another 2TB array( the one we built ran us $5200 a year ago including a basic W2K Server license ) and having a Windows Server mirror them but the Co President usually prefers brand name solutions with same day service, yada yada. I've been Googling about and find that the terminology on SAN vs NAS is inconsistent and that almost nobody speaks of clustering the file servers to allow for a failure there.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Paul
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
If speed is not of critical performance then I would recommend a clustered NAS device for NetApps. They are not expensive compaired to SAN attached kit as you don't have the expense of buying SAN switches and HBA's. The Filers come iSCSI ready by default so you get that extra choice if you want it. 2TB can be acheived in 1 tray so expense should not breach 30K for two trays, and the software is easy enough that you should be able to make a stab at the clustering yourself is you don't wish to engage a partner.
ASKER
I'll head over to Netapp.com and take a look.
Many thanks for your thoughts
Paul
Many thanks for your thoughts
Paul
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
NS600 doesn't do SAN..only NAS. The NS600G however does do both as the NAS unit is only a gateway addon to the Clariion base. Plus the NS600G is a pairly expensive option for round 2TB considering that you must have a minimum of 5 Fibre channel disks in the DPE of the clariion (Internal falir code must sit on FC disk not SATA), and for file sharing is massivly overpowered. If you really wanted to go down the route of a clustered SAN with option to serve NAS /iSCSI then the NS500G would be cheaper (uprated NS400 model gateway). Lower models 300 etc.. don't do clustering because they only have 2 FC connections on the SP's (a dedicated 3rd is required for this function). EMC does do very good hardware but it's not the cheapest available, but you do get what you pay for in this market. I have doe close to 100 installs of Clariions and Celerra's (both NS series and CFS14's), as well as HDS, IBM and Netapps. They are all pretty much the same as hardware functionality goes, so the real questions you should be asking is about the bundled software and it's price/useability.
One thing you can do With iSCSI is turn drive on a local system in to a San device. Then put two such units in a cluster that would give 2 server and 2 SAN with out buying the SAN. It a full redundent system. I done this and it works.
ASKER
Hi qjohnson99. I've only read about ISCSI the past 2 years or so. What within the ISCSI specification would allow for duplicate writes to both servers? I'm thinking about timing issues primarily.
Tks
Paul
Tks
Paul
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Ok, thanks for the low down. I think I'm going to have to keep looking for something a little more 'turnkey'... I want it to be operable/repairable by a non techie in case I win the lottery, which means a full support warranty and our backup IT firms being able to understand it.
Good luck with your arrays!
Paul
Good luck with your arrays!
Paul
ASKER
What I had in mind was a cluster of two file servers connected to two RAID5 arrays ( or both connected to the same mirrored array ) so that we could lose one RAID5 array or file server and still serve data up. As to budget, the Apple bid was just over $30k. We rarely use a budget, instead determine what functionality we wish and find the best solution then price for that thought.
I realize that this arena is one of the very few that still has a lot of fat for vendors to realize a profit on, but I am surprised that nobody has tried to move into the SMB market with a solution for this problem. I would think that most professional companies with people billing out at hundreds of dollars per hour ( thinking attys here ) would pay for such a solution.. ?
Regarding SAN vs NAS vs ISCSI... I read articles on them once in a while but have not followed the process over the past few years of determining which is which, which is best for what application, etc. I would guess that speed would not be as great a factor for us as for most simply because we have only 25 employees. We have had a number of problems over the past 1-2 years which have taken the files offline for 15 min to 4 hours once ( which doesn't include working all night two times to get the data back up by 7 am :] ) so the case can be made for this type of solution. I just am uncertain what to call it and how to investigate the possibilities.
Paul