|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > December 2007 > Help with chosing a SAN!
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 |
Help with chosing a SAN!
|
|
| cqmman 2007-11-28, 7:17 pm |
| Hello,
We are a looking at buying a SAN. Size is barely an issue (less than
2TB initally), but we would like something extendable. We would to run
important (but not big in terms of size or transactions) database
(both MS SQL and Oracle) as well as perhaps Exchange on there, and
replicate those (perhaps using snapshots?) to a remote site for DR
(too far for sync transfers).
We are looking at an EMC Celerra solution, HP 4100 solution (using
iSCSI rather than FC), or Equallogic.
We would also like to host VMWare at some point to use Vmotion and
Site Recovery Manager.
My preferred option is currently an Equallogic box on each side. The
HP solution (4100's) gives us flexibility (to use FC), but I don't
think we need that kind of performance or want that kind of hassle.
The equallogic box just seems a good fit in terms of being easy to
setup and use (we have no dedicated storage people).
Not sure about the EMC solution. The Celerra apparently has thin
provisioning and virtual arrays (which makes out job a little easier),
but I don't know how suitable it is apart from that.
Is iSCSI a real world solution? Are Equallogic boxes good in the real
world? Is the Celerra box comparable?
Any other help appreciated!
| |
| lahuman9 2007-11-29, 1:17 am |
| On Nov 28, 6:17 pm, cqmman <cqm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are a looking at buying a SAN. Size is barely an issue (less than
> 2TB initally), but we would like something extendable. We would to run
> important (but not big in terms of size or transactions) database
> (both MS SQL and Oracle) as well as perhaps Exchange on there, and
> replicate those (perhaps using snapshots?) to a remote site for DR
> (too far for sync transfers).
>
> We are looking at an EMC Celerra solution, HP 4100 solution (using
> iSCSI rather than FC), or Equallogic.
>
> We would also like to host VMWare at some point to use Vmotion and
> Site Recovery Manager.
>
> My preferred option is currently an Equallogic box on each side. The
> HP solution (4100's) gives us flexibility (to use FC), but I don't
> think we need that kind of performance or want that kind of hassle.
> The equallogic box just seems a good fit in terms of being easy to
> setup and use (we have no dedicated storage people).
>
> Not sure about the EMC solution. The Celerra apparently has thin
> provisioning and virtual arrays (which makes out job a little easier),
> but I don't know how suitable it is apart from that.
>
> Is iSCSI a real world solution? Are Equallogic boxes good in the real
> world? Is the Celerra box comparable?
>
> Any other help appreciated!
Hitachi is the best, don't forget them
| |
| Faeandar 2007-11-29, 1:17 am |
| On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:17:42 -0800 (PST), cqmman <cqmman@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>We are a looking at buying a SAN. Size is barely an issue (less than
>2TB initally), but we would like something extendable. We would to run
>important (but not big in terms of size or transactions) database
>(both MS SQL and Oracle) as well as perhaps Exchange on there, and
>replicate those (perhaps using snapshots?) to a remote site for DR
>(too far for sync transfers).
>
>We are looking at an EMC Celerra solution, HP 4100 solution (using
>iSCSI rather than FC), or Equallogic.
>
>We would also like to host VMWare at some point to use Vmotion and
>Site Recovery Manager.
>
>My preferred option is currently an Equallogic box on each side. The
>HP solution (4100's) gives us flexibility (to use FC), but I don't
>think we need that kind of performance or want that kind of hassle.
>The equallogic box just seems a good fit in terms of being easy to
>setup and use (we have no dedicated storage people).
>
>Not sure about the EMC solution. The Celerra apparently has thin
>provisioning and virtual arrays (which makes out job a little easier),
>but I don't know how suitable it is apart from that.
>
>Is iSCSI a real world solution? Are Equallogic boxes good in the real
>world? Is the Celerra box comparable?
>
>Any other help appreciated!
HP support is bad. EMC is evil.
Equalogic has alot of good reviews and iSCSI is making great inroads
in the enterprise SAN market so I think you won't go wrong with them.
If you don't already have an FC infrastructure I would not bother
putting one in, just go with iSCSI. We use it to some extent since we
do not need alot of SAN and it works fine. No performance issues as
long as you have a seperate storage nic, particularly for client-based
backups.
~F
| |
|
| On Nov 28, 5:17 pm, cqmman <cqm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are a looking at buying a SAN. Size is barely an issue (less than
> 2TB initally), but we would like something extendable. We would to run
> important (but not big in terms of size or transactions) database
> (both MS SQL and Oracle) as well as perhaps Exchange on there, and
> replicate those (perhaps using snapshots?) to a remote site for DR
> (too far for sync transfers).
>
> We are looking at an EMC Celerra solution, HP 4100 solution (using
> iSCSI rather than FC), or Equallogic.
>
> We would also like to host VMWare at some point to use Vmotion and
> Site Recovery Manager.
>
> My preferred option is currently an Equallogic box on each side. The
> HP solution (4100's) gives us flexibility (to use FC), but I don't
> think we need that kind of performance or want that kind of hassle.
> The equallogic box just seems a good fit in terms of being easy to
> setup and use (we have no dedicated storage people).
>
> Not sure about the EMC solution. The Celerra apparently has thin
> provisioning and virtual arrays (which makes out job a little easier),
> but I don't know how suitable it is apart from that.
>
> Is iSCSI a real world solution? Are Equallogic boxes good in the real
> world? Is the Celerra box comparable?
>
> Any other help appreciated!
Have you looked at the NetApp FAS270 or FAS2020? Either will do all of
what you mention and give you more flexability.
I admit that I am biased but these boxes just work and are simple to
use.
Mike
| |
| lkjlkjlkj 2007-11-29, 1:16 pm |
| i'd recommend the EqualLogic as well. It also supports
thin provisioning (which you mentioned liking on the EMC).
Simple, great performance, reliable. We have both FC and
iSCSI, and we're phasing out the FC in favor of all iSCSI
going forward. We run SQL, Exchange, Oracle.
the FC people push the performance angle really hard,
especially with your databases... but until you get to
some very high loads, it's just not an issue.
| |
| cqmman 2007-12-01, 7:15 am |
| On 29 Nov, 14:01, "lkjlkjlkj"
<lkjlkjlkjlkjl...@lkjlkjlkjlkj2.ed.cn.edu> wrote:
> i'd recommend the EqualLogic as well. It also supports
> thin provisioning (which you mentioned liking on the EMC).
> Simple, great performance, reliable. We have both FC and
> iSCSI, and we're phasing out the FC in favor of all iSCSI
> going forward. We run SQL, Exchange, Oracle.
>
> the FC people push the performance angle really hard,
> especially with your databases... but until you get to
> some very high loads, it's just not an issue.
Hey, do you do any kind of replication or DR on your Oracle database?
If so, would be interested in hearing how you do it?
Equallogic is looking more and more like our preferred choice..
| |
| cqmman 2007-12-01, 7:15 am |
| On 29 Nov, 13:54, Mike <Michael.Mil...@gdit.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 5:17 pm,cqmman<cqm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Have you looked at the NetApp FAS270 or FAS2020? Either will do all of
> what you mention and give you more flexability.
> I admit that I am biased but these boxes just work and are simple to
> use.
>
Yeah we have.
Netapp really seem to have priced themselves out. For the money are
looking at, HP, EMC, Equallogic all seem to offer much more. Plus the
the software licence model is a killer for us. Also, the management
was pretty good, but the Equallogic and EMC interfaces just seemed a
bit better. Preferred the Netapp one to HP though.
I don't know, Gartner seem to really rate Netapp, but I don't see why.
We must be missing something somewhere.. Still, talking to Gartner
soon so hopefully they can tell us why!
| |
| Edwin Cooke 2007-12-01, 7:14 pm |
| cqmman <cqmman*yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Netapp really seem to have priced themselves out. For the money
> are looking at, HP, EMC, Equallogic all seem to offer much more.
> Plus the the software licence model is a killer for us. Also,
> the management was pretty good, but the Equallogic and EMC
> interfaces just seemed a bit better.
> Preferred the Netapp one to HP though.
>
> I don't know, Gartner seem to really rate Netapp, but I don't
> see why. We must be missing something somewhere..
The hardware part of making of a storage system is pretty well
understood now by all the vendors. There are differences in
detail between the various schemes for connecting subsystems
together, but, at the end of the day, you end up with a bunch
of disk drives. Configured as a SAN LUN, this bunch of disks
magically appears to have pretty much the same properties that
an enormous single disk drive would have. For better or worse.
The hard part is software, and NetApp has been stirring its
secret sauce longer than most of the current crop of vendors.
Netapp uses the "consistency point" and copy-on-write model as
a way to do some clever things. Can the other vendors make a
snapshot? Well, yeah. But, last time I checked, making a
snapshot of a LUN on other vendor's gear was something you
start and then go get coffee while you wait for it to run. But,
in Netapp's Data Ontap, the equivalent of a snapshot is made
routinely every 10 seconds (or more often), and you just grab
one as it's going by and preserve it. Easy and qu ick. Netapp
has some API special hooks that let both Oracle and MSsql
quiesce their transactions before making the snapshot, so
that the snapshot captures a database image that requires no
transaction log replay. You could restore it and immediately
go online.
NetApp has a small-business division called "Storevault" that
sells smaller versions of its hardware only though partners.
Its Data Ontap is tweaked to have a Windows-centric interface,
but it can do iSCSI LUNs like the enterprise product line does
and maybe would be easie r for your environment.
http://www.storevault.com/
HTH.
--
Edwin
| |
| nik Simpson 2007-12-02, 1:17 am |
| In-Reply-To: <ecoo_20071201_120511-TYS@stratagy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <df10d$475228ea$18d62c2d$24959@KNOLOGY.NET>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
Organization: UseNetServer.com
Lines: 32
X-Trace: df10d475228eabd73898824959
Bytes: 2371
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.arch.storage:41133
Edwin Cooke wrote:
> The hard part is software, and NetApp has been stirring its
> secret sauce longer than most of the current crop of vendors.
> Netapp uses the "consistency point" and copy-on-write model as
> a way to do some clever things. Can the other vendors make a
> snapshot? Well, yeah. But, last time I checked, making a
> snapshot of a LUN on other vendor's gear was something you
> start and then go get coffee while you wait for it to run.
Most vendors now support Copy-on-Write Snapshots.
> But,
> in Netapp's Data Ontap, the equivalent of a snapshot is made
> routinely every 10 seconds (or more often), and you just grab
> one as it's going by and preserve it. Easy and qu ick. Netapp
> has some API special hooks that let both Oracle and MSsql
> quiesce their transactions before making the snapshot, so
> that the snapshot captures a database image that requires no
> transaction log replay. You could restore it and immediately
> go online.
In the case of MSSql it would be VSS and again almost all array vendors
support VSS. It would also be VSS for Oracle on Windows, so no advantage
for NTAP there, and certainly no particularly special sauce.
--
Nik Simpson
| |
|
| nik Simpson wrote:
> Edwin Cooke wrote:
>
>
> Most vendors now support Copy-on-Write Snapshots.
>
NetApp's snapshots aren't Copy-on-Write in the same way that other
vendors usually are. There's no performance hit for taking snapshots
and running with them in place.
Pete
|
|
|
|
|