Creating more storage space
Hi,
currently on one our our file servers where all the users folders are located the drive is nearly running out of space so wanted to know best way to solve this issue. The size currently taken up by the users folders is approximately 275gig and there is about 25gig left. I dont wana move them to another server if possible. Any ideas? Sans? Nas? Thanks. This is on a windows 2003 standard server.
currently on one our our file servers where all the users folders are located the drive is nearly running out of space so wanted to know best way to solve this issue. The size currently taken up by the users folders is approximately 275gig and there is about 25gig left. I dont wana move them to another server if possible. Any ideas? Sans? Nas? Thanks. This is on a windows 2003 standard server.
Do more with
EXPERT OFFICE® is a registered trademark of EXPERTS EXCHANGE®
Check out http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;325590. The instructions show how to extend a partition
You didn't say how much a factor your budget is (hi, lo, near nothing).
The best choice in terms of performance, stability, and redundancy is a small SAN connected via fiber channel. However, this will be the most expensive as you will need to purchase fiber-channel cards for your server as well as the SAN itself. One of the largest benefits of this is that the server will actually see the additional storage space as physical disks, meaning that permissions & security is a snap.
A lower cost solution, albeit one with lower performance and depending upon the manufacturer more difficulty in setting permissions is a NAS unit. Most of these run on a linux kernel and rely on LDAP (if your lucky) for permissions, but many that are lower cost have built in security that doesn't work with LDAP.
The lowest cost solution, and in my opinion, the least desirable as you will sink money into a device that will be forever tied to an already aging server is to add physical drives (if your existing raid controller card has available ports) or purchasing a second raid card and adding additional drives.
In my opinion, your choices on this are going to be tethered to your budget and to your long term plans.
The best choice in terms of performance, stability, and redundancy is a small SAN connected via fiber channel. However, this will be the most expensive as you will need to purchase fiber-channel cards for your server as well as the SAN itself. One of the largest benefits of this is that the server will actually see the additional storage space as physical disks, meaning that permissions & security is a snap.
A lower cost solution, albeit one with lower performance and depending upon the manufacturer more difficulty in setting permissions is a NAS unit. Most of these run on a linux kernel and rely on LDAP (if your lucky) for permissions, but many that are lower cost have built in security that doesn't work with LDAP.
The lowest cost solution, and in my opinion, the least desirable as you will sink money into a device that will be forever tied to an already aging server is to add physical drives (if your existing raid controller card has available ports) or purchasing a second raid card and adding additional drives.
In my opinion, your choices on this are going to be tethered to your budget and to your long term plans.
Any reason why you cannot either add more drives or replace drives with higher capacity units ?
As soon as you head into anything like a SAN or even decent NAS you could likely just replace the server and be done with it for the same money. This also avoids making the infrastructure any more complicated.
A DAS - direct attached storage unit is not really forever tied to a old server as it can usually be connected to any new server just as easily. It also has the benefit of being simple to manage as the drives are just connected like internal drives on the server.
As soon as you head into anything like a SAN or even decent NAS you could likely just replace the server and be done with it for the same money. This also avoids making the infrastructure any more complicated.
A DAS - direct attached storage unit is not really forever tied to a old server as it can usually be connected to any new server just as easily. It also has the benefit of being simple to manage as the drives are just connected like internal drives on the server.
>The best choice in terms of performance, stability, and redundancy is a small SAN connected via fiber channel.
Not necessarily, DAS is faster than SAN if you have the same amount of similar performing disks and same cache size.
>Any reason why you cannot either add more drives or replace drives with higher capacity units ?
Ditto that, need to know more about the server and controller you currently have.
Not necessarily, DAS is faster than SAN if you have the same amount of similar performing disks and same cache size.
>Any reason why you cannot either add more drives or replace drives with higher capacity units ?
Ditto that, need to know more about the server and controller you currently have.
Premium Content
You need an Expert Office subscription to comment.Start Free Trial