Data Storage - Server vs. NAS Storage

Author

Server vs. NAS Storage

richardkaplan2@gmail.com

2006-09-03, 7:16 pm

I am trying to think through options for a mission-critical office
requiring a storage server.

What are the differences and pros/cons of a computer/server vs. a
freestanding NAS network accessible storage device? Assume either one
will have a RAID 1 mirroring configuration.

Stunster

2006-09-03, 7:16 pm

A server you have to buy an operating system, maintain software
patches, worry about security holes, maintain the OS which may or may
not have advances volume management capabilities.

NAS is up and running in minutes, dedicated system for file serving,
maximum flexibility for volume management.

richardkaplan2@gmail.com wrote:
> I am trying to think through options for a mission-critical office
> requiring a storage server.
>
> What are the differences and pros/cons of a computer/server vs. a
> freestanding NAS network accessible storage device? Assume either one
> will have a RAID 1 mirroring configuration.

W. Curtis Preston

2006-09-04, 1:14 am

I'd agree with everything the last poster said. In addition, I'd add
that most real NAS systems have stripped out everything in the OS not
needed for file sharing, resulting in much higher performance.

NAS excels in ease of management and performance. I'd take an actual
NAS box over a general purpose server any day.

If you want to spend $20-30 to learn more on the subject, my book
(Using SANs and NAS) is available:
http://www.amazon.com/Using-SANs-NA...n/dp/0596001533

richardkaplan2@gmail.com

2006-09-04, 1:14 pm

Stunster wrote:
> A server you have to buy an operating system, maintain software
> patches, worry about security holes, maintain the OS which may or may
> not have advances volume management capabilities.

> NAS is up and running in minutes, dedicated system for file serving,
> maximum flexibility for volume management.

Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?

richardkaplan2@gmail.com

2006-09-04, 1:14 pm

Curtis Preston

2006-09-04, 1:14 pm

The only one that comes to mind is that a server MAY be less expensive to
acquire. However, if you consider the TCO of both, I think even a low-end
NAS system would win out.

On 4 Sep 2006 09:21:20 -0700, richardkaplan2@gmail.com <
richardkaplan2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Stunster wrote:
>
>
> Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?
>
> ________________________________________
_______
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this mailing list here:
>
> http://backupcentral.com/mailman/li...ckupcentral.com
>

Paul Rubin

2006-09-04, 1:14 pm

"Stunster" <dgholt@gmail.com> writes:
> A server you have to buy an operating system, maintain software
> patches, worry about security holes, maintain the OS which may or may
> not have advances volume management capabilities.
>
> NAS is up and running in minutes, dedicated system for file serving,
> maximum flexibility for volume management.

What makes you think an NAS doesn't also need patches and have
security holes?

Ruediger Grimm

2006-09-04, 7:17 pm

Hi,

I think with an SAN/NAS-attached storage You have the following
advantages:

- scalability: The storage can grow far more than a direct attached
disk-storage
- availability/disaster-recovery: If You organize Your data well, You
can mount the remote-storage by another server and contitue Your business.

tbase [ruediger]
http://www.uname-a.net

Rob Turk

2006-09-04, 7:17 pm

<richardkaplan2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157386880.776216.15130@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stunster wrote:
>
>
> Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?
>
Usually general purpose hardware, making it easy and cheap to expand with
newer network cards, storage hardware etc. A server can also be used to run
other services and applications besides file serving

Rob

Faeandar

2006-09-05, 1:18 pm

On 3 Sep 2006 21:32:46 -0700, "W. Curtis Preston"
<backupmeister@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'd agree with everything the last poster said. In addition, I'd add
>that most real NAS systems have stripped out everything in the OS not
>needed for file sharing, resulting in much higher performance.
>
>NAS excels in ease of management and performance. I'd take an actual
>NAS box over a general purpose server any day.
>
>If you want to spend $20-30 to learn more on the subject, my book
>(Using SANs and NAS) is available:
>http://www.amazon.com/Using-SANs-NA...n/dp/0596001533

NAS systems also have an OS (though it needs less maintenance
certainly), it has bugs that need fixing, patches to install, firmware
updates, etc. I agree it's easier to manage than a full-service OS
but to say it doesn't need any of those things is misleading.

Also, depending on the NAS and the server I may very well choose a
server over the NAS. If you're talking NetApp, then no, there's no
server I would choose over it. But if we're talking a very low end
NAS I would much prefer to build a Solaris NAS server instead.

~F

Faeandar

2006-09-05, 1:18 pm

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:13:57 +0200, Ruediger Grimm
<rg@grimm-ruediger.de> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I think with an SAN/NAS-attached storage You have the following
>advantages:
>
>- scalability: The storage can grow far more than a direct attached
>disk-storage

Not entirely true, they can grow about the same. A Solaris server
will address a grip of storage, how much exactly I no longer know, but
I'd venture a guess it's in the the double digit terabytes if not
more.

>- availability/disaster-recovery: If You organize Your data well, You
>can mount the remote-storage by another server and contitue Your business.

This is a very good point. If the original poster provides more info
this may be a crucial piece of the puzzle.

~F

>
>
>tbase [ruediger]
>http://www.uname-a.net

Ruediger Grimm

2006-09-05, 1:18 pm

> Not entirely true, they can grow about the same. A Solaris server
> will address a grip of storage, how much exactly I no longer know, but
> I'd venture a guess it's in the the double digit terabytes if not
> more.

Hi,

shure, they can grow about the same.
My point in this argument pointed more to the physical problem:
Most of the server You can buy has a limited number of, let´s say,
"slots" to attach a disk direct. This "slots" are SCSI, internal FC, and
so on. But this number is more limited than, for example, a HDS where
You can add ~ 400 Disks an more.

tbase [Ruediger]
http://www.uname-a.net

Faeandar

2006-09-05, 7:18 pm

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:03:51 +0200, Ruediger Grimm
<rg@grimm-ruediger.de> wrote:

>
>Hi,
>
>shure, they can grow about the same.
>My point in this argument pointed more to the physical problem:
>Most of the server You can buy has a limited number of, let´s say,
>"slots" to attach a disk direct. This "slots" are SCSI, internal FC, and
>so on. But this number is more limited than, for example, a HDS where
>You can add ~ 400 Disks an more.
>
>tbase [Ruediger]
>http://www.uname-a.net

I just got confused. When did HDS come into the picture in a NAS v.
Server debate?

From a slot standpoint, most GP servers are made of the same basic
hardware as NAS appliances. For instance, the NetApp 980 has 12 or so
slot openings (though not all of those are available for FC/disk
controllers) and the Sun E3800 has about the same, give or take a
slot. This means to me that I can add about the same number of
shelves to each and get about the same amount of bandwidth.

~F

Stunster

2006-09-05, 7:18 pm

I am not sure I specifically said you dont have to do those things for
a NAS device, but they are most definalty easier and less frequent.

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Stunster" <dgholt@gmail.com> writes:
>
> What makes you think an NAS doesn't also need patches and have
> security holes?

Andrew Gideon

2006-09-16, 7:15 pm

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 09:21:20 -0700, richardkaplan2 wrote:

> Thanks... so what are the advantages of a server?

Here's an example of one: When I last checked (which was, admittedly, a
while back), no NAS devices I could find would support the near-POSIX ACLs
over NFSv3. Worse, nobody that did support NFSv4 was support it's ACLs.

Building a NAS out of either Linux or Solaris, one gets ACLs over NFS.

It's a very specific need, admittedly, but it's one example of a situation
that might drive choosing a server over a "device".

[I did actually find one NAS "device" vendor that support ACLs over NFS.
But their device was a Linux machine. And it had many problems, none of
which I ever had on Linux that I'd installed myself.]

- Andrew

Faeandar

2006-09-18, 7:18 pm

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:04:15 -0400, Andrew Gideon
<c182driver9@gideon.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 09:21:20 -0700, richardkaplan2 wrote:
>
>
>Here's an example of one: When I last checked (which was, admittedly, a
>while back), no NAS devices I could find would support the near-POSIX ACLs
>over NFSv3. Worse, nobody that did support NFSv4 was support it's ACLs.

That's because the ACL's for NFSv4 are not even standardized yet. The
support for ACL's is not scheduled until v4.1.

~F

>
>Building a NAS out of either Linux or Solaris, one gets ACLs over NFS.
>
>It's a very specific need, admittedly, but it's one example of a situation
>that might drive choosing a server over a "device".
>
>[I did actually find one NAS "device" vendor that support ACLs over NFS.
>But their device was a Linux machine. And it had many problems, none of
>which I ever had on Linux that I'd installed myself.]
>
> - Andrew

carmelomcc

2006-09-19, 7:14 pm

I would look at buying a server with ATA storage and loading the distro
from freenas.org. It is an linux distro made jsut for nas and offers
all the features that a high end nas box would.

Faeandar wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:04:15 -0400, Andrew Gideon
> <c182driver9@gideon.org> wrote:
>
>
> That's because the ACL's for NFSv4 are not even standardized yet. The
> support for ACL's is not scheduled until v4.1.
>
> ~F
>

cwallenstein

2006-09-20, 12:38 pm

From my perspective, the biggest difference is servicability.

If something goes wrong with our storage, I want to replace the faulty part ASAP (e.g., one hour or less). With a file server built with off-the-shelf hardware, I can do that for just about any part without requiring a service contract, special order parts, etc.

Per carmelomcc's suggestion, I also highly recommend FreeNAS.