| Author |
Exposing Windows 2000 Direct Attach Storage Upstream as Fibre Channel
|
|
|
| Does any vendor sell a software product that will expose logical volumes on
a Windows 2000 server as fibre channel targets? I'm looking for block
level sharing of the logical device with other fibre channel hosts.
The Windows 2000 host would act as a replacement for the head end of a fibre
channel storage system.
--
Will
| |
| Rob Turk 2005-03-06, 2:45 am |
| "Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in message
news:VqCdnbTp6JlgFrffRVn-qQ@giganews.com...
> Does any vendor sell a software product that will expose logical volumes
> on
> a Windows 2000 server as fibre channel targets? I'm looking for block
> level sharing of the logical device with other fibre channel hosts.
>
> The Windows 2000 host would act as a replacement for the head end of a
> fibre
> channel storage system.
>
> --
> Will
Datacore (www.datacore.com) SANsymphony. Not sure how well is works
Rob
| |
|
| That's $50K plus, ouch. I'm looking for something that is more
of a mass market tool.
--
Will
Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com
"Rob Turk" <_wipe_me_r.turk@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:422ac38b$0$84710$e4fe514c@dreader6.news.xs4all.nl...
> Datacore (www.datacore.com) SANsymphony. Not sure how well is
works
>
> Rob
| |
| kirmse@netaxs.com 2005-03-07, 5:45 pm |
| SANmelody, with fibre channel option, is Datacore's lower tier product
which can be purchased for $2600. This would allow disk partitions to
be presented as fibre channel LUNs to other servers. Two points to
consider. One, the server running the Datacore software can't
effectively access the partition being served. Two, while multiple
servers could access the same LUN you still need to have some form of
sharing software before multiple servers can access the same LUN at the
same time.
There are a few other packages that allow the serving up of fibre
channel LUNs but I dont believe there are any others that run on a
windows platform.
| |
|
| I'm looking for a low-cost way to turn a Windows 2000 server into
a head end of a SATA RAID system. This "low-end" product costs
more for the software alone than some of the SATA head ends do.
My own sense is that $900 is about the sweet spot for a product
of this type.
What are the other packages? I assume that those are either
Linux based or run their own proprietary OS? Which of those
others has received the best reviews?
--
Will
Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com
<kirmse@netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:1110211728.166029.38950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> SANmelody, with fibre channel option, is Datacore's lower tier
product
> which can be purchased for $2600. This would allow disk
partitions to
> be presented as fibre channel LUNs to other servers. Two points
to
> consider. One, the server running the Datacore software can't
> effectively access the partition being served. Two, while
multiple
> servers could access the same LUN you still need to have some
form of
> sharing software before multiple servers can access the same
LUN at the
> same time.
>
> There are a few other packages that allow the serving up of
fibre
> channel LUNs but I dont believe there are any others that run
on a
> windows platform.
>
| |
| Rob Turk 2005-03-08, 5:45 pm |
| "Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in message
news:XNKdnaelTsG9RLDfRVn-gQ@giganews.com...
> I'm looking for a low-cost way to turn a Windows 2000 server into
> a head end of a SATA RAID system. This "low-end" product costs
> more for the software alone than some of the SATA head ends do.
> My own sense is that $900 is about the sweet spot for a product
> of this type.
>
> What are the other packages? I assume that those are either
> Linux based or run their own proprietary OS? Which of those
> others has received the best reviews?
>
> --
> Will
> Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com
The problem is that you're looking for a solution that isn't used in
commodity environments. Your $900 "sweet spot" doesn't make sense. The
clients that would invest in such a system need to invest in FC host
adapters that are around $900 each and a switch of $5000, just to get
connected.
If you're looking at creating a block-device SAN-like solution, try iSCSI
software clients and a SATA-based iSCSI target server. I believe there's a
Linux iSCSI target server that you can use, or you may even want to check
out Novell Netware 6.5 with it's iSCSI target implementation.
Rob
| |
| kirmse@netaxs.com 2005-03-08, 5:45 pm |
| You specified a fibre channel target. You are not going to be able to
create a head unit providing this kind of connectivity at that price
range.
Falconstor's IPstor, which runs on a Linux platform, is the only other
standalone software product I am aware of that can provide fibre
channel connectivity. The last time I checked it was in a similar price
range.
An iSCSI head unit could be created at a lower cost. Without the fibre
channel connectivity a Datacore solution could be as low as $200 for
the software. There are quite a number of other iSCSI packages that
would provide this kind of target.
| |
|
| $900 for the host adapter.
$2500 for the head end
Around $6000 for the drives
The host adapter can just direct connect to the head end or go
through a cheap fibre hub ($200)
To do this with an existing Windows 200x Server:
$900 for the host adapter
$1000 for the JBOD drive cabinet
$2000 for the server (storage server)
$1000 for Veritas Volume Manager
$6000 for the drives.
Now I have to pay $2600 more for software to expose the LUN?
I'm looking for something that should be a $300 option for
Veritas' software. Paying $2600 for it makes it more expensive
than buying external hardware that shrink wraps the whole
solution. I think $2600 is very greedy for something that is
not so complex and doesn't have a chance of surviving long term
as a product on its own. It's clear to me that Veritas will
eventually hear this customer requirement and subsume it into the
Storage Foundation.
--
Will
Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com
"Rob Turk" <_wipe_me_r.turk@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:422e02e3$0$171$e4fe514c@dreader13.news.xs4all.nl...
> "Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in message
> news:XNKdnaelTsG9RLDfRVn-gQ@giganews.com...
into[vbcol=seagreen]
costs[vbcol=seagreen]
do.[vbcol=seagreen]
product[vbcol=seagreen]
those[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The problem is that you're looking for a solution that isn't
used in
> commodity environments. Your $900 "sweet spot" doesn't make
sense. The
> clients that would invest in such a system need to invest in FC
host
> adapters that are around $900 each and a switch of $5000, just
to get
> connected.
>
> If you're looking at creating a block-device SAN-like solution,
try iSCSI
> software clients and a SATA-based iSCSI target server. I
believe there's a
> Linux iSCSI target server that you can use, or you may even
want to check
> out Novell Netware 6.5 with it's iSCSI target implementation.
>
> Rob
>
>
| |
| Jake Gittes 2005-03-08, 8:45 pm |
| Contrary to your comments FC Target mode implementations are very
complex. They represent a significant part of the development cost of
the solutions that provide them.
Products that have them are just not available in the price range you
are talking about.
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:54:59 -0800, "Will"
<DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote:
>$900 for the host adapter.
>$2500 for the head end
>Around $6000 for the drives
>The host adapter can just direct connect to the head end or go
>through a cheap fibre hub ($200)
>
>To do this with an existing Windows 200x Server:
>
>$900 for the host adapter
>$1000 for the JBOD drive cabinet
>$2000 for the server (storage server)
>$1000 for Veritas Volume Manager
>$6000 for the drives.
>
>Now I have to pay $2600 more for software to expose the LUN?
>I'm looking for something that should be a $300 option for
>Veritas' software. Paying $2600 for it makes it more expensive
>than buying external hardware that shrink wraps the whole
>solution. I think $2600 is very greedy for something that is
>not so complex and doesn't have a chance of surviving long term
>as a product on its own. It's clear to me that Veritas will
>eventually hear this customer requirement and subsume it into the
>Storage Foundation.
| |
| Rob Turk 2005-03-09, 7:45 am |
| "Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in message
news:8uednb6a4pqugrPfRVn-vw@giganews.com...
> $900 for the host adapter.
> $2500 for the head end
> Around $6000 for the drives
> The host adapter can just direct connect to the head end or go
> through a cheap fibre hub ($200)
>
> To do this with an existing Windows 200x Server:
>
> $900 for the host adapter
> $1000 for the JBOD drive cabinet
> $2000 for the server (storage server)
> $1000 for Veritas Volume Manager
> $6000 for the drives.
>
> Now I have to pay $2600 more for software to expose the LUN?
> I'm looking for something that should be a $300 option for
> Veritas' software. Paying $2600 for it makes it more expensive
> than buying external hardware that shrink wraps the whole
> solution. I think $2600 is very greedy for something that is
> not so complex and doesn't have a chance of surviving long term
> as a product on its own. It's clear to me that Veritas will
> eventually hear this customer requirement and subsume it into the
> Storage Foundation.
>
> --
> Will
> Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com
>
I very much doubt Veritas will ever get their licensing structure in line
with what you would like to see. If you've ever seen the full version of a
Veritas price list you'll know what I mean.
In stead of bickering about the cost of the software, can you take one step
back and explain what exactly it is that you're trying to accomplish? Your
message suggests you are trying to morph a Windows 2000 server into a FC
target, just to attach a single client to it? What is this client supposed
to do that it must use Fibre Channel? What do you need Veritas Volume
Manager for?
In other words, "What's your problem?!?" ;-)
Rob
| |
|
| I'm actually working on two different projects at the same time:
1) Multi terabyte backup to disk, later migrated to tape. I would like to
figure out the lowest cost way to do this, and I think serial ATA is
probably hard to beat just because the price of the disk typically makes up
most of the cost of the array and per MB the cost on Serial ATA is low. I
do not want to put a serial ATA RAID controller in the Windows server that
needs to access the large logical volume.
2) Replace an existing IDE RAID to fiber solution with a technology more
suited to a large multi-user application. I think fibre drives are a good
fit, and it is just a question of whether to access those as fibre JBOD and
do the RAID 1+0 or RAID 5 management on Windows 2000 using Veritas, or to
get a standalone array solution like Dell CX. Since I don't have a
requirement for multi-host access to the storage, managing the RAID right at
the server probably meets with most of the important requirements.
After making sure we meet the technical requirements for numbers of
concurrent users/processes and number of simultaneous I/Os, etc, the main
decision criteria is cost. The fact is there is no budget at all for this
activity. If I can piece together a technically correct solution from
parts that costs 1/2 of what the shrink-wrap one-vendor-provides-everything
solution, I know the 1/2-cost solution is going to win. I'm going to take
the time to measure actual throughput on the system and make sure it meets
requirements from the start, which in the case of 2) above is clearly not
something that was done before. Someone had the bright idea of putting an
IDE RAID storage system as the main storage for a heavily used multi-user
database. It's not going to be hard to improve on that.
--
Will
"Rob Turk" <_wipe_me_r.turk@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:422e9edc$0$1736$e4fe514c@dreader20.news.xs4all.nl...
> I very much doubt Veritas will ever get their licensing structure in line
> with what you would like to see. If you've ever seen the full version of a
> Veritas price list you'll know what I mean.
>
> In stead of bickering about the cost of the software, can you take one
step
> back and explain what exactly it is that you're trying to accomplish? Your
> message suggests you are trying to morph a Windows 2000 server into a FC
> target, just to attach a single client to it? What is this client supposed
> to do that it must use Fibre Channel? What do you need Veritas Volume
> Manager for?
>
> In other words, "What's your problem?!?" ;-)
>
> Rob
>
>
|
|
|
|