|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > October 2004 > Network Attached Storage advice
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Network Attached Storage advice
|
|
| Paul Rubin 2004-10-20, 5:45 pm |
| Hello all.
I'm considering buying an NAS with RAID for a reliable storage of A/V
data. There seem to be a lot of proprietary O/S devices, and I'm
concered about what happens if the device itself fails. I have lots of
WinXP machines around, so it would be nice if I could mount one of the
drives from the NAS into a WinXP box for immediate in the case of
device failure. Any ideas?
Sincerely,
Paul Rubin
prubinNOSPAM@equilter.com
| |
|
| In article <f9bb33d4.0410200804.6fcd3129@posting.google.com>,
prubin@equilter.com says...
>
>Hello all.
>
>I'm considering buying an NAS with RAID for a reliable storage of A/V
>data. There seem to be a lot of proprietary O/S devices, and I'm
>concered about what happens if the device itself fails. I have lots of
>WinXP machines around, so it would be nice if I could mount one of the
>drives from the NAS into a WinXP box for immediate in the case of
>device failure. Any ideas?
>
probably not since
the fact that it's a RAID means that the drives in the NAS device
would probably be "striped" together and that you'd need all of
them to get a complete view of your data AND
the NAS program would (probably) be need to read the data anyway
easiest solution would probably be to add storage to one of your
servers & let it "serve" the AV files the same way that a NAS would
Then you could move the storage to another server if the one you were
useing failed
not as good or cheap a solution but one that would satisfy your req
* & for whatever it's worth, AV files run a lot faster over a SAN,
not a NAS, & speed may be an issue for you
_____ . .
' \\ . . |>>
O// . . |
\_\ . . |
| | . . . |
/ | . www.EvenEnterprises.com . . . |
/ .| aseltzer@EvenEnterprises.com . . . |
/ . | 310-544-9439 / 310-544-9309 fax . . . o
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized - DIRECT VAR/VAD/Distributor for new SCSI/FC-AL peripherals
NAS/SAN/RAID from HP, IBM, Seagate, EMC, QLogic, ATL, OverLand Data
| |
| Faeandar 2004-10-20, 8:45 pm |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:09:53 GMT, aseltzer@evenenterprises.com (Andy)
wrote:
>In article <f9bb33d4.0410200804.6fcd3129@posting.google.com>,
>prubin@equilter.com says...
>
>* & for whatever it's worth, AV files run a lot faster over a SAN,
>not a NAS, & speed may be an issue for you
You mean it runs faster over 2gb (fc) than 1gb (eth) right? NAS is
not inherently slower contrary to popular opinion. Once 10gb ethernet
hits the masses it will be a new mantra.
~F
| |
| Curious George 2004-10-21, 2:45 am |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:09:53 GMT, aseltzer@evenenterprises.com (Andy)
wrote:
>In article <f9bb33d4.0410200804.6fcd3129@posting.google.com>,
>prubin@equilter.com says...
>
>probably not since
>the fact that it's a RAID means that the drives in the NAS device
>would probably be "striped" together and that you'd need all of
>them to get a complete view of your data AND
>the NAS program would (probably) be need to read the data anyway
No. All raid levels other than 0 can withstand drive
failure(s)/removal. A low end nas may not support hot plug/unplug
though.
NAS with embedded OS also exist so array failure does not mean lost OS
in those cases.
Frankly I'd rather see XP client pc's cannibalized for temporary spare
server parts than the other way round. To put an array in degraded
mode, potentially jeopardizing availability to all users to
accommodate a single user doesn't make much sense. It's always best
practice to have true 'spare' parts available instead of compromising
a server.
>easiest solution would probably be to add storage to one of your
>servers & let it "serve" the AV files the same way that a NAS would
This would be the poorest choice for performance. NAS appliances
exist to offload basic file service responsibilities from existing
servers without the large cost/complexity of additional full-fledged
servers.
It is also bad for availability bc if there is a serious hardware
problem or maintenance issue the network looses both storage service
as well as what ever else the server is supposed to do (i.e. database
server). The best solution is 2 nas devices in failover. It is much
more expensive though than adding a disk to an existing server so you
have to evaluate needs, usage patterns, & budget.
>Then you could move the storage to another server if the one you were
>useing failed
Sometimes it is not that simple and the approach is bad for
availability for multiple reasons.
>not as good or cheap a solution but one that would satisfy your req
Maybe. It depends on details of his needs he has not yet shared. If
he is the only user, for example, all he needs is another drive and a
NAS would be overkill. If he has many users already hammering a
server you don't just pop in another disk and give the server an extra
bandwidth intensive role. You also wouldn't be quick to pass the A/V
storage disk around to different computers when there are problems.
>* & for whatever it's worth, AV files run a lot faster over a SAN,
>not a NAS, & speed may be an issue for you
Those are big categories so I don't know what you are comparing. The
more important distinction between NAS and SAN is that they address
different needs so its somewhat of an apples & oranges comparison.
| |
|
| In article <835en053dciu5kvcumjo398ogpqa04jbq7@4ax.com>,
mr_castalot@yahoo.com says...
>
>On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:09:53 GMT, aseltzer@evenenterprises.com (Andy)
>wrote:
>
>
>
>You mean it runs faster over 2gb (fc) than 1gb (eth) right? NAS is
>not inherently slower contrary to popular opinion. Once 10gb ethernet
>hits the masses it will be a new mantra.
>
sort of
reading AV files in "block (device) mode", rather than "file (served)"
mode is certainly faster & less overhead
1Gb is 1Gb & 2 is 2 but they are different transports with different
properties
and n"reading" them over a network that is optomized & segregated for
storage traffic certainly helps also
& yes, when 10Gb delivers in volume FC will have a problem competing
_____ . .
' \\ . . |>>
O// . . |
\_\ . . |
| | . . . |
/ | . www.EvenEnterprises.com . . . |
/ .| aseltzer@EvenEnterprises.com . . . |
/ . | 310-544-9439 / 310-544-9309 fax . . . o
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized - DIRECT VAR/VAD/Distributor for new SCSI/FC-AL peripherals
NAS/SAN/RAID from HP, IBM, Seagate, EMC, QLogic, ATL, OverLand Data
| |
| Paul Rubin 2004-10-28, 5:45 pm |
| Thanks for your replies,
I'm now considering a way to connect multiple drives to my laptop
computer and configure them with Mirrored Raid 1. Any ideas? The
laptop has Firewire, USB2.0, and ethernet connectivity, but NO PCI
slots.
Sincerely,
Paul Rubin
prubin@NOSPAMequilter.com
aseltzer@evenenterprises.com (Andy) wrote in message news:<ap9fd.43912$bk1.33047@fed1read05>...
> In article <835en053dciu5kvcumjo398ogpqa04jbq7@4ax.com>,
> mr_castalot@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> sort of
> reading AV files in "block (device) mode", rather than "file (served)"
> mode is certainly faster & less overhead
> 1Gb is 1Gb & 2 is 2 but they are different transports with different
> properties
> and n"reading" them over a network that is optomized & segregated for
> storage traffic certainly helps also
> & yes, when 10Gb delivers in volume FC will have a problem competing
>
> _____ . .
> ' \\ . . |>>
> O// . . |
> \_\ . . |
> | | . . . |
> / | . www.EvenEnterprises.com . . . |
> / .| aseltzer@EvenEnterprises.com . . . |
> / . | 310-544-9439 / 310-544-9309 fax . . . o
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Authorized - DIRECT VAR/VAD/Distributor for new SCSI/FC-AL peripherals
> NAS/SAN/RAID from HP, IBM, Seagate, EMC, QLogic, ATL, OverLand Data
| |
| Curious George 2004-10-28, 5:45 pm |
| On 28 Oct 2004 10:55:50 -0700, prubin@equilter.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
>Thanks for your replies,
>I'm now considering a way to connect multiple drives to my laptop
>computer and configure them with Mirrored Raid 1.
Why? You're using a laptop, after all, so the reliability of an
external drive(s) is not exactly the weakest link reliability-wise.
Disk writes won't be improved and without a good raid controller you
are lacking all the good (life saving) management features.
>Any ideas?
Run Windows server or *nix.
> The
>laptop has Firewire, USB2.0, and ethernet connectivity, but NO PCI
>slots.
Preference to firewire enclosures.
| |
| Paul Rubin 2004-10-29, 5:45 pm |
| Thanks again for your reply. I'm starting to realize that it's hard to
beat simply building another small PC with a Raid 0+1 card, four HDD's
and Windows Server.....
Sincerely,
Paul
prubin@NOSPAMequilter.com
Curious George <CG@email.net> wrote in message news:<qqd2o0dh9mcct2cbit7fr5g6j24hlq7si8@4ax.com>...
> On 28 Oct 2004 10:55:50 -0700, prubin@equilter.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
>
>
> Why? You're using a laptop, after all, so the reliability of an
> external drive(s) is not exactly the weakest link reliability-wise.
> Disk writes won't be improved and without a good raid controller you
> are lacking all the good (life saving) management features.
>
>
> Run Windows server or *nix.
>
>
> Preference to firewire enclosures.
| |
| Curious George 2004-10-29, 5:45 pm |
| Not sure 0+1 will give you any speed boost over 1+0 with video streams
over ethernet. 1+0 is usually seen as better from a
fault-recoverability standpoint. Of course it all depends.
Why not tell us a little more about your project and needs and pick
the groups brains a little more?
On 29 Oct 2004 14:35:29 -0700, prubin@equilter.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Thanks again for your reply. I'm starting to realize that it's hard to
>beat simply building another small PC with a Raid 0+1 card, four HDD's
>and Windows Server.....
>
>Sincerely,
>Paul
>prubin@NOSPAMequilter.com
>
>Curious George <CG@email.net> wrote in message news:<qqd2o0dh9mcct2cbit7fr5g6j24hlq7si8@4ax.com>...
| |
| Paul Rubin 2004-10-30, 5:45 pm |
| Thanks again, I'm actually looking for fault tolerance more than
speed. That's why the 1+0 array makes sense. The setup is mostly for
reliable video file storage.
Sincerely,
Paul
prubin@NOSPAMequilter.com
Curious George <CG@email.net> wrote in message news:<i0h5o0tdr50j3pgbfjo8g7eqikatg8uldh@4ax.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Not sure 0+1 will give you any speed boost over 1+0 with video streams
> over ethernet. 1+0 is usually seen as better from a
> fault-recoverability standpoint. Of course it all depends.
>
> Why not tell us a little more about your project and needs and pick
> the groups brains a little more?
>
> On 29 Oct 2004 14:35:29 -0700, prubin@equilter.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:
>
|
|
|
|
|