|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > January 2005 > Experiences with SANRAD?
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 |
Experiences with SANRAD?
|
|
| Andrew Gideon 2004-12-20, 5:45 pm |
|
I'm considering SANRAD iSCSI/SCSI. Does it make sense to get a SAN with
SCSI output, and a couple of SANRADs, as opposed to a SAN with iSCSI
output?
I like the SANRAD solution because of the flexibility (ie. I can get a SCSI
SAN today, and then add the iSCSI tomorrow, I can plug my other SCSI disks
into the SANRAD over time, etc.). But I wonder if having an additional
unit will increase latency.
So...anyone with SANRAD experiences to share?
- Andrew
| |
|
| On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:44:04 -0500, Andrew Gideon wrote:
>I'm considering SANRAD iSCSI/SCSI. Does it make sense to get a SAN with
>SCSI output, and a couple of SANRADs, as opposed to a SAN with iSCSI
>output?
Is this the right approach? Depends on what you want from your
storage.
Why do you want iSCSI in the first place?
If your server and storage are physically close to one another, SCSI
will do fine.
If you want to share your storage with several servers, or if the
server(s) is/are further away (12m+) you might want Fibre Channel or
iSCSI.
If you want very high performance between server and storage, then you
need Fibre Channel.
I see iSCSI as being a great way to connect servers into a centralized
storage device that you might not otherwise have bothered connected -
usually for cost reasons or if the server is located across an IP WAN.
Many people are using iSCSI today for critical servers (Exchange,
typically) but I'm not totally convinced that this is a great idea
yet.
If you are serious about using iSCSI on important servers you should
consider using iSCSI HBAs or ToE cards to relieve the server from the
encapsulation workload.
I haven't used the SANRAD v-switches though I haven't used them
personally. They offer quite a neat approach to storage
virtualisation and the ability to connect SCSI devices into a Fibre
Channel SAN. They're pretty good value too, IIRC.
HVB.
| |
| Andrew Gideon 2004-12-21, 5:45 pm |
| HVB wrote:
> Why do you want iSCSI in the first place?
[...]
> If you want to share your storage with several servers, or if the
> server(s) is/are further away (12m+) you might want Fibre Channel or
> iSCSI.
Storage will be shared. Initially, it'll be with three servers, but I plan
to grow it beyond that.
[Separate from this discussion, I've been looking at GFS as a cluster file
system for sharing file-level storage.]
> If you want very high performance between server and storage, then you
> need Fibre Channel.
>
> I see iSCSI as being a great way to connect servers into a centralized
> storage device that you might not otherwise have bothered connected -
> usually for cost reasons or if the server is located across an IP WAN.
>
> Many people are using iSCSI today for critical servers (Exchange,
> typically) but I'm not totally convinced that this is a great idea
> yet.
>
> If you are serious about using iSCSI on important servers you should
> consider using iSCSI HBAs or ToE cards to relieve the server from the
> encapsulation workload.
Hmm. That's a very good point; I'd not considered special iSCSI HBAs. I
didn't even realize these existed!
As to iSCSI vs. Fibre, I've been thinking that iSCSI is more likely to be
successful in the long term. iSCSI doesn't require additional training, as
it uses the same ol' boring networking gear. And with ethernet speeds
growing as they have been, I think that it'll overtake Fibre's performance
ultimately.
But I'm new to this market, so take all that with a serious grain of salt.
> I haven't used the SANRAD v-switches though I haven't used them
> personally. They offer quite a neat approach to storage
> virtualisation and the ability to connect SCSI devices into a Fibre
> Channel SAN. They're pretty good value too, IIRC.
They look like a very good way to shift existing storage into a new storage
network. But what I'm wondering is if they make sense for a new
installation. That is, since I'm buying a new storage device, shouldn't I
simply buy a device that speaks iSCSI instead of one that speaks SCSI plus
a couple of SANRADs?
- andrew
| |
| Drink_Chai 2004-12-21, 5:45 pm |
| On 2004-12-21, Andrew Gideon <cR182Driver45@gideon.org> wrote:
> As to iSCSI vs. Fibre, I've been thinking that iSCSI is more likely to be
> successful in the long term.
We will have both for a long time. For the foreseeable future fibre channel will be much
faster than iSCSI. With 4 and 8Gb fibre channel being seen while iscsi
will be stuck at 1gigethernet.
>iSCSI doesn't require additional training, as
> it uses the same ol' boring networking gear.
BAH! thats the "physical" layer only, which is like 1/10th of what
managing storage is about. There is still the same issues with array
management, lun masking, etc.. I see this as a marketing fallocy
myself.
>And with ethernet speeds growing as they have been, I think that it'll overtake Fibre's performance
> ultimately.
Actually not. Ethernet is either 1Gb(today) or 10Gb(so expensive I have
never seen it used).
Fibre channel has 2Gb as the "normal" and will be 4Gb next year, and 8Gb
prob by the end of the year all on the same cables and connectors and
backwards compatbile.
Plus, 1Gb ethernet is like .5Gb fibre channel due to the overhead of
iscsi and the fact ethernet has much smaller packet sizes. (eg more
ack's are send back and forth wasting traffic capacity).
I am using both FC and iSCSI in our large environment, but frankly
people who smoke the iSCSI-will-take-over pipe are not living in reality.
| |
| Andrew Gideon 2004-12-28, 2:45 am |
| onions
6 cloves garlic
bunch green onions, chopped
Cut the children?s butts and the beef roast into pieces
that will fit in the grinder.
Run the meat through using a 3/16 grinding plate.
Add garlic, onions and seasoning then mix well.
Add just enough water for a smooth consistency, then mix again.
Form the sausage mixture into patties or stuff into natural casings.
Stillborn Stew
By definition, this meat cannot be had altogether fresh,
but have the lifeless unfortunate available immediately after delivery,
or use high quality beef or pork roasts (it is cheaper and better to
cut up a whole roast than to buy stew meat).
1 stillbirth, de-boned and cubed
¼ cup vegetable oil
2 large onions
bell pepper
celery
garlic
½ cup red wine
3 Irish potatoes
2 large carrots
This is a simple classic stew that makes natural gravy,
thus it does not have to be thickened.
Brown the meat quickly in very hot oil, remove and set aside.
Brown the onions, celery, pepper and garlic.
De-glaze with wine, return meat to the pan and season well.
Stew on low f
| |
|
| in this classic southern delicacy.
The sandwich originated in New Orleans, where an abundance of abortion clinics
thrive and hot French bread is always available.
2 cleaned fetuses, head on
2 eggs
1 tablespoon yellow mustard
1 cup seasoned flour
oil enough for deep frying
1 loaf French bread
Lettuce
tomatoes
mayonnaise, etc.
Marinate the fetuses in the egg-mustard mixture.
Dredge thoroughly in flour.
Fry at 375° until crispy golden brown.
Remove and place on paper towels.
Holiday Youngster
One can easily adapt this recipe to ham, though as presented,
it violates no religious taboos against swine.
1 large toddler or small child, cleaned and de-headed
Kentucky Bourbon Sauce (see index)
1 large can pineapple slices
Whole cloves
Place him (or ham) or her in a large glass baking dish, buttocks up.
Tie with butcher string around and across so that he looks like
he?s crawling.
Glaze, then arrange pineapples and secure with cloves.
Bake uncovered in 350° oven till thermometer reaches 160°.
Cajun Babies
Just like crabs or crawfish, babies are boiled alive!
You don?t need silverware, the hot spicy meat comes off in your hands.
6 live babies
1 lb. smoked sausage
4 lemons
whole garlic
2 lb. new potatoes
4 ears corn
1 box salt
crab boil
Bring 3 gallons of water to a
| |
|
| In article <slrncshcpp.8v9.dhoover@hoovers.homeip.net>,
fakeemail@fakeemail.dkd says...
>
>On 2004-12-21, Andrew Gideon <cR182Driver45@gideon.org> wrote:
>
>We will have both for a long time. For the foreseeable future fibre channel
will be much
>faster than iSCSI. With 4 and 8Gb fibre channel being seen while iscsi
>will be stuck at 1gigethernet.
>
>
>
>BAH! thats the "physical" layer only, which is like 1/10th of what
>managing storage is about. There is still the same issues with array
>management, lun masking, etc.. I see this as a marketing fallocy
>myself.
>
>
overtake Fibre's performance[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Actually not. Ethernet is either 1Gb(today) or 10Gb(so expensive I have
>never seen it used).
>
>Fibre channel has 2Gb as the "normal" and will be 4Gb next year, and 8Gb
>prob by the end of the year all on the same cables and connectors and
>backwards compatbile.
>
>Plus, 1Gb ethernet is like .5Gb fibre channel due to the overhead of
>iscsi and the fact ethernet has much smaller packet sizes. (eg more
>ack's are send back and forth wasting traffic capacity).
>
>
>I am using both FC and iSCSI in our large environment, but frankly
>people who smoke the iSCSI-will-take-over pipe are not living in reality.
>
this guy has it right
that, coupled with ;
a. iSCSI's bandwith is such that ide/SATA based storage should deliver
more that enough performance to fill up an iSCVSI pipe & a SCSI based
subsystem is NOT an INexpensive thing
b. these days you can buy an inexpensive 1TB iSCSI subsystem (Adaptec)
for well under $10k
c. Infortrend is just starting to deliver it's 16 bay, SATA based iSCSI
subsystem at ide/RAID pricing levels
d. With FC HBAs selling for under $600., 2Gbit FC switches well under $10k
& the RAIDed storage costing the same no matter which way it's delivered,
FC may still be the way to go if you need any real performance out of
your storage
I think that if you have an existing FC SAN that the SANRAD would be
a good, but expensive, way of delivering some portion of it's storage
over your existing IP infrastructure since SANRAS's a good product &
it works
_____ . .
' \\ . . |>>
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
| |
| Nik Simpson 2005-01-05, 8:45 pm |
| Andy wrote:
>
> I think that if you have an existing FC SAN that the SANRAD would be
> a good, but expensive, way of delivering some portion of it's storage
> over your existing IP infrastructure since SANRAS's a good product &
> it works
DataCore or FalconStor are also possibilities if you are looking for an
FC-iSCSI gateway.
--
Nik Simpson
|
|
|
|
|