Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of janhoedt
janhoedt

asked on

NAS for home lab ESX: NAS & disks

Hi,


Please advise on two options (budgetfriendly):

1)      Synology DS 412+ (4 disks)

OR

2)      8-bay Synology DS1812 + (8 disks)


… and their disks

Existing config = home lab with 3 ESXi-server (8 GB ram each, will extend to 16 GB). DS1511+ with 5 disks (Seagate barracuda 2 TB, 64MB cache).
When running vm’s on current storage, they run to slow.  
Main vm’s which should run simultaneously =  1 SQL 2008 RAM (200 GB used), 1 VCenter, 1 or 2 DC’s, 1 or 2 XenApp-server, 1 Windows 7, 1 SCCM-server (some 100 GB), 1 SCOM-server

I thought of adding just SSD’s but they are really expensive + will have little storage whereas they will get cheaper in the future. The 8 bays might be overkill but that gives me the ability to scale.
The current DS1511+ stores my data + some vm’s (DC only for the moment). I could use the DS 412+ for only SQL, VCenter, SCCM, XenApp and Windows 7 but will it cope with the load …?
Adding a lot of smaller disks is also an option, but they are almost as epxensive as ssd’s ….

I want to stick to the list Synology provides: http://www.synology.com/support/hd.php?lang=enu&bays_id=10&product_id=94#2.5%20Solid%20State%20Drives%20%28SSD%29


Please advise,

J.
Avatar of Andrew Hancock (VMware vExpert PRO / EE Fellow/British Beekeeper)
Andrew Hancock (VMware vExpert PRO / EE Fellow/British Beekeeper)
Flag of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland image

if there is no issues with budget I would recommend the 8 disk unit, more disks = more spindles = more performance = more IOPS.

If you want top performance, RAID 10, but SATA 7200rpm disks, are very low performers, with not many IOPS, compared to SAS 10k or 15k.

You could work out the IOPS per datastore at present between your 5 disk solution, but also remember remote shared storage e.g. iSCSI or NFS, you will lose performance.

Have you tried local storage with SSDs in your ESXi severs compared to your NAS?
Avatar of janhoedt
janhoedt

ASKER

Thanks. So you'd probably advise SSD's then ....

I haven't compared IOPS, not sure how to start there.
That's actually also my question: is it worth investing in extra remote storage. Even with SSD's, it is ISCSI remote storage, not sure if I'll get the extra performance I expect.
Local SSD is very fast. But running vm's locally (what I do most now), is something I want to get rid of since it is the power of ESX running shared storage.
This way I also avoid issues like I had (esx crashed/down: cannot access vm).

Want to do real effort to optimize performance, will also add extra ram, but of course the money has to be worth the effort.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Andrew Hancock (VMware vExpert PRO / EE Fellow/British Beekeeper)
Andrew Hancock (VMware vExpert PRO / EE Fellow/British Beekeeper)
Flag of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
So conclusion = ssd. Ok, then I ll go for ds 1812+ and 4 ssd of 120 gb.
Yes, SSDs will always give you more performance for your money.