IBM DS300 v.s. DS400 - Storage

This is a discussion on IBM DS300 v.s. DS400 - Storage ; Hi, Am considering recommending purchase of either an IBM DS300 or DS400 storage system for our environment. I've done a little reading on both, and understand the obvious differences (e.g. iSCSI for DS300, Fibre for DS400, more disks for DS400 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: IBM DS300 v.s. DS400

  1. IBM DS300 v.s. DS400

    Hi,

    Am considering recommending purchase of either an IBM DS300 or DS400
    storage system for our environment. I've done a little reading on both,
    and understand the obvious differences (e.g. iSCSI for DS300, Fibre for
    DS400, more disks for DS400 etc), but I'd appreciate some advice on the
    specifics in relation to my targeted use.

    It is for a production environment, in which we have a document server,
    storing and retrieving relatively large files (2-5MB) on a storage
    system. It is the storage system that I need to advise on, and I'm
    having some trouble understanding why I should double the price to get
    the DS400 if the only benefit is larger disks, and potentially higher
    channel data rate through fibre.

    Isn't it still running on a single SCSI bus to the disks? That's
    320Mbps, so I'm only going to get increased performance when hitting
    the cache I assume?

    My most pressing concern is path redundancy from the storage server, to
    the storage system. In both the DS300 and DS400 case, I would be
    recommending a dual controller configuration, and we would run dual
    connections over dual HBAs on the server, but in the documentation for
    the devices, only the DS400 shows a dual path configuration in the
    context of path redundancy. The DS300 is only shown in the context of
    improved performance brought about by having two iSCSI links between
    the server and the system.

    Is anyone aware of whether the DS300 can be configured so that if one
    controller dies, the server will still have uninterupted access via the
    2nd controller?

    In both the case of the DS300 and DS400 is there special software that
    needs to be ordered to configure multi-pathing on the server HBA's
    (sorry if my terminology is incorrect). i.e. Is there software that I
    need to run on the xServer that will tell the HBAs to configure for
    redundancy in event of single path failure?

    Also can anyone confirm whether or not the caches are mirrored?

    Thanks
    Regards
    Simon


  2. Re: IBM DS300 v.s. DS400

    Do not buy either one wait for IBM to ramp up the NetApp OEM and
    purchase a Filer. They are much more reliable then the IBM internal
    line of storage.


  3. Re: IBM DS300 v.s. DS400

    "carmelomcc" wrote in message
    news:1132847254.122705.324510@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
    > Do not buy either one wait for IBM to ramp up the NetApp OEM and
    > purchase a Filer. They are much more reliable then the IBM internal
    > line of storage.


    Then why not buy a NetApp?? IBM is going to charge you more for the box,
    knows less about the features and offers less of the product line. The
    Filers that IBM offers (FAS270 equyivalent, soon one of the FAS3000 series)
    are an order of magnitude more expensive then the DS300/400

    Rob



  4. Re: IBM DS300 v.s. DS400

    Great. Thanks for the info. Felt the DS400 was likely to be the way to
    go. Glad you could fill in the blanks. We are going for QLogic HBAs so
    we're definitely on the right track there. Only one volume required for
    this application, and direct connection from the server to the storage
    device, so we'll need to consider path configuration while building.
    Good food for thought. Cheers
    Simon


+ Reply to Thread