nav vs san - Storage

This is a discussion on nav vs san - Storage ; I know this is a broad question, but here goes... If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an enterprise.... NAS or SAN? What is generally more flexible and easier to manage? Dvy...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: nav vs san

  1. nav vs san

    I know this is a broad question, but here goes...

    If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an
    enterprise.... NAS or SAN?

    What is generally more flexible and easier to manage?

    Dvy


  2. Re: nav vs san

    On 2 Feb 2007 14:32:49 -0800, dvymiller@yahoo.com wrote:

    >I know this is a broad question, but here goes...
    >
    >If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an
    >enterprise.... NAS or SAN?
    >
    >What is generally more flexible and easier to manage?
    >
    >Dvy


    Almost all will agree NAS is easier to manage, particularly if you
    stay below 10 heads. Personally I think managing 28 is fine too but
    that's just me.

    NAS also offers alot more functionality and flexibility you won't find
    in a SAN (depending on the vendor of course, I'm specifically
    referring to NetApp). Snapshots, cloning, replication, etc.
    Oh there are SAN vendors who claim to be able to do this but the
    implementation is horrific. You can't do any of the really cool stuff
    if you do not own the file system, and SAN is purely block. For
    examples of this topic look at HDS snapshots v. NetApp. It's not even
    close to a fair fight.

    Even if performance is an issue NAS can still make the grade. When
    performance enters the picture it becomes an issue of what you (the
    application) are doing. Some things are faster on SAN, others are
    faster on NAS.

    ~F

  3. Re: nav vs san

    On Feb 3, 4:00 am, Faeandar wrote:
    > On 2 Feb 2007 14:32:49 -0800, dvymil...@yahoo.com wrote:
    >
    > >I know this is a broad question, but here goes...

    >
    > >If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an
    > >enterprise.... NAS or SAN?

    >
    > >What is generally more flexible and easier to manage?

    >
    > >Dvy

    >
    > Almost all will agree NAS is easier to manage, particularly if you
    > stay below 10 heads. Personally I think managing 28 is fine too but
    > that's just me.
    >
    > NAS also offers alot more functionality and flexibility you won't find
    > in a SAN (depending on the vendor of course, I'm specifically
    > referring to NetApp). Snapshots, cloning, replication, etc.
    > Oh there are SAN vendors who claim to be able to do this but the
    > implementation is horrific. You can't do any of the really cool stuff
    > if you do not own the file system, and SAN is purely block. For
    > examples of this topic look at HDS snapshots v. NetApp. It's not even
    > close to a fair fight.
    >
    > Even if performance is an issue NAS can still make the grade. When
    > performance enters the picture it becomes an issue of what you (the
    > application) are doing. Some things are faster on SAN, others are
    > faster on NAS.
    >
    > ~F


    Agree with Faendar, management point of view NAS is better option and
    also offer snapshot feature which is very much usefull. Also directory
    level quota (qtree) which is again a nice feature.
    Also hardware component wise NAS has less so less prone to failure and
    easy to handle. NAS has single console to manage but in most of the
    SAN solution, seperate console for SAN and then seperate for Disk
    management.
    But I feel it depends upon requirement. In Database application SAN
    should be better choise because if databases are running over NFS then
    during cluster failover( I am talking about NetApp NAS) database
    corruption may happens because outage happens. But again NetApp also
    provides SAN solution over Fibre which is pretty well and we are using
    without any much problem.
    You can also check HP EVA with EFS cluster which looks good. As I
    found they have logical raids instead of physical raids. I hope most
    of the vendor as of now have physical raids. It means RAID groups are
    bound with drives but in EVA radis are not bound with drives and they
    are logical. Disks are part of diskpool which can have any no. of
    disks in a single diskpool. And again we can have more than one type
    of raids in a single raid group. It may be usefull in some environment
    where seperate raids are required.


  4. Re: nav vs san

    Please remember most NAS devices have SAN's on their backend running fibre
    channel. If you want an appliance that serves up filesystems, then the NAS
    is the way to go. If performance and block data are top on your priority
    list, a 4G fibre channel front end is the way to go.

    Da Moojit

    wrote in message
    news:1170455569.006504.17850@l53g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
    >I know this is a broad question, but here goes...
    >
    > If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an
    > enterprise.... NAS or SAN?
    >
    > What is generally more flexible and easier to manage?
    >
    > Dvy
    >




  5. Re: nav vs san

    On 2 Feb 2007 20:18:42 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    wrote:

    >On Feb 3, 4:00 am, Faeandar wrote:
    >> On 2 Feb 2007 14:32:49 -0800, dvymil...@yahoo.com wrote:
    >>


    >But I feel it depends upon requirement. In Database application SAN
    >should be better choise because if databases are running over NFS then
    >during cluster failover( I am talking about NetApp NAS) database
    >corruption may happens because outage happens.


    What are you basing this on? In all our Oracle RAC testing over NFS
    on NetApp there is no corruption and no outage at any time. In fact,
    Oracle recommends running RAC over NFS rather than using a block level
    CFS.
    THis applies to non-RAC installs as well. Oracle runs an incredible
    amount of their internal databases on NetApp, over NFS.

    ~F

  6. Re: nav vs san

    On Feb 4, 8:31 am, Faeandar wrote:
    > On 2 Feb 2007 20:18:42 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Feb 3, 4:00 am, Faeandar wrote:
    > >> On 2 Feb 2007 14:32:49 -0800, dvymil...@yahoo.com wrote:

    >
    > >But I feel it depends upon requirement. In Database application SAN
    > >should be better choise because if databases are running over NFS then
    > >during cluster failover( I am talking about NetApp NAS) database
    > >corruption may happens because outage happens.

    >
    > What are you basing this on? In all our Oracle RAC testing over NFS
    > on NetApp there is no corruption and no outage at any time. In fact,
    > Oracle recommends running RAC over NFS rather than using a block level
    > CFS.
    > THis applies to non-RAC installs as well. Oracle runs an incredible
    > amount of their internal databases on NetApp, over NFS.
    >
    > ~F


    We had two instance when Clearcase database got corrupted. During RCA
    it was found that due to NFS outage it was happened.
    But I also heard from some vendors that Oracle is running over NFS.
    But my gut feeling is that if any node in cluster goes down due to any
    reason then failover takes some time and that may be problmatic. Give
    your comment on it.


  7. Re: nav vs san

    On 5 Feb 2007 03:15:40 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    wrote:

    >On Feb 4, 8:31 am, Faeandar wrote:
    >> On 2 Feb 2007 20:18:42 -0800, "Raju Mahala"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Feb 3, 4:00 am, Faeandar wrote:
    >> >> On 2 Feb 2007 14:32:49 -0800, dvymil...@yahoo.com wrote:

    >>
    >> >But I feel it depends upon requirement. In Database application SAN
    >> >should be better choise because if databases are running over NFS then
    >> >during cluster failover( I am talking about NetApp NAS) database
    >> >corruption may happens because outage happens.

    >>
    >> What are you basing this on? In all our Oracle RAC testing over NFS
    >> on NetApp there is no corruption and no outage at any time. In fact,
    >> Oracle recommends running RAC over NFS rather than using a block level
    >> CFS.
    >> THis applies to non-RAC installs as well. Oracle runs an incredible
    >> amount of their internal databases on NetApp, over NFS.
    >>
    >> ~F

    >
    >We had two instance when Clearcase database got corrupted. During RCA
    >it was found that due to NFS outage it was happened.
    >But I also heard from some vendors that Oracle is running over NFS.
    >But my gut feeling is that if any node in cluster goes down due to any
    >reason then failover takes some time and that may be problmatic. Give
    >your comment on it.


    What kind of outage? The client OS should be able to handle any kind
    of temporary outage during a failover. The failover only lasts about
    8 seconds, so in most cases the client gets one, maybe two, NFS server
    not responding messages but picks right back up.

    I can't speak to ClearCase but from an Oracle standpoint corruption of
    the type you mention is difficult to come by. Nigh impossible if the
    db is setup properly.
    Redo logs alone mean if the filer does not respond the db can be
    brought up later and replayed to exactly the last transaction before
    the outage.
    In the case of a failover of failback what I mentioned above is the
    standard.
    Writes are only acknowledged once they are in NVRAM. A response can't
    be received by the client if it can't talk to the server. In which
    case the db will halt with it's redo logs in static state (or whatever
    the db's call it).

    ~F

  8. Re: nav vs san


    dvymiller@yahoo.com Wrote:
    > I know this is a broad question, but here goes...
    >
    > If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an
    > enterprise.... NAS or SAN?
    >
    > What is generally more flexible and easier to manage?
    >
    > Dvy

    for transactional processing/database apps SAN hands dow


    --
    PAUL LEEBER

  9. Re: nav vs san

    On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:43:57 +0000, PAUL LEEBER
    wrote:

    >
    >dvymiller@yahoo.com Wrote:
    >> I know this is a broad question, but here goes...
    >>
    >> If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an
    >> enterprise.... NAS or SAN?
    >>
    >> What is generally more flexible and easier to manage?
    >>
    >> Dvy

    >for transactional processing/database apps SAN hands down


    Those types of performance requirements only account for about 5% of
    the db's out there. And since the OP insinuated performance was not
    an issue, I'd say it's a safe bet he doesn't fall into that category.

    And if you really REALLY need the best performance possible you go
    direct attached. SAN can't touch that still.

    ~F

  10. Re: nav vs san

    On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:26:47 -0600, Moojit wrote:

    > Please remember most NAS devices have SAN's on their backend running fibre
    > channel. If you want an appliance that serves up filesystems, then the
    > NAS is the way to go. If performance and block data are top on your
    > priority list, a 4G fibre channel front end is the way to go.


    Are there NAS devices which support NFSv3 using ACLs (compatible with
    Linux and Solaris)? Or even NFSv4 with its "optional" but more standard
    ACLs?

    - Andrew


  11. Re: nav vs san

    On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:17:03 -0500, Andrew Gideon
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:26:47 -0600, Moojit wrote:
    >
    >> Please remember most NAS devices have SAN's on their backend running fibre
    >> channel. If you want an appliance that serves up filesystems, then the
    >> NAS is the way to go. If performance and block data are top on your
    >> priority list, a 4G fibre channel front end is the way to go.

    >
    >Are there NAS devices which support NFSv3 using ACLs (compatible with
    >Linux and Solaris)? Or even NFSv4 with its "optional" but more standard
    >ACLs?
    >
    > - Andrew


    NFSv4 does not yet support POSIX ACL's, that is slated for 4.1.

    For v3:
    I'm not aware of any NAS *devices* that support ACL's over NFS but if
    you are a nearly homogeneous shop (say mostly Solairs or mostly Linux)
    using them as NFS servers will allow for ACL's.

    I know it works for Solaris to Solaris and I'm almost certain Linux
    works with itself as well. However you cannot mix Solaris and Linux
    and have ACL's work.

    In case that wasn't clear, Solaris clients accessing a Solaris NFS
    server can use ACL's over NFS. Linux clients accessing that sam
    Solaris NFS server cannot.

    ~F

  12. Re: nav vs san

    On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:14:27 +0000, Faeandar wrote:


    > For v3:
    > I'm not aware of any NAS *devices* that support ACL's over NFS but if you
    > are a nearly homogeneous shop (say mostly Solairs or mostly Linux) using
    > them as NFS servers will allow for ACL's.


    That's the approach we've been taking: a SAN behind a Redhat GFS cluster.
    But a single "box" solution would be convenient.

    > I know it works for Solaris to Solaris and I'm almost certain Linux
    > works with itself as well. However you cannot mix Solaris and Linux and
    > have ACL's work.


    We do that in both directions, and it works.

    - Andrew


  13. Re: nav vs san

    On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:31:38 -0500, Andrew Gideon
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:14:27 +0000, Faeandar wrote:
    >
    >
    >> For v3:
    >> I'm not aware of any NAS *devices* that support ACL's over NFS but if you
    >> are a nearly homogeneous shop (say mostly Solairs or mostly Linux) using
    >> them as NFS servers will allow for ACL's.

    >
    >That's the approach we've been taking: a SAN behind a Redhat GFS cluster.
    >But a single "box" solution would be convenient.


    What are your thoughts/opinions/experiences with GFS? I did some
    research on them and found them tobe trailing other products so left
    them out of evals.

    >
    >> I know it works for Solaris to Solaris and I'm almost certain Linux
    >> works with itself as well. However you cannot mix Solaris and Linux and
    >> have ACL's work.

    >
    >We do that in both directions, and it works.
    >


    So you're saying Linux clients to Solaris NFS server can still use
    ACL's?

    ~F

  14. Re: nav vs san

    To reply to the original question, the answer really needs to be
    derived from what you want the storage for?

    Some folks believe that NAS is a ton easier to manage than SAN, but
    that is not always the case anymore.
    In a nutshell, NAS is more flexible and easier to manage than
    SAN...mostly because all shops have an IP savvy guy or dept. already
    and cutting over to FC would make some waves...it is in fact what
    scares most people up and above the excess costs to engage. On that
    note, there is also protocols like iSCSI that might address the best
    of both worlds for plenty of shops. Used to be considered an SMB
    play, but we are seeing plenty of enterprise opportunities where iSCSI
    is a better fit than NAS.

    I disagree with some of the statements, as I can do MUCH BETTER
    consistency at the block level than you can achieve with file level,
    although it is true that some features do require file level access to
    properly manage/manipulate...IE: CAS, ILM
    I can recover an Oracle DB or even your entire exchange environment
    back to the last snapshot in minutes...with no replaying journal logs,
    etc.

    Although many h/w vendors do not have the right tools bundled to take
    care of things the way most folks would want, the software/middleware/
    appliances can certainly fix that problem.

    You need to understand your performance requirements, the application
    purpose and its availability requirements to properly justify which
    you need.

    If performance is not an issue and you want easy management and
    flexibility, then buy a SATA-to-FC storage array with built-in RAID,
    direct connect it to your application box(s) in FC point-to-point
    manner with HBA(s) installed in the box(s) and run from this model.
    If your purpose is to have a file server, then enable your NFS/CIFS
    NAS Head capability from the server itself. If you outgrow this and
    keep moving forward, you can always cut the architecture over to a
    fabric model, but no need to build a "SAN" if you only have a single
    starting purpose.

    Many of the vendors arrays can do multiple snapshots per LUN and run
    RAID6 with dual-parity and hot-spare and with the size of the drives
    available and perpendicular performance, I think you will find what
    you need with SATA...in fact the right box can run oracle DB's with a
    SATAII/perp drive config with multi-spindle SAS backplaned 4Gb FC
    output configs...IE: Any SATA-to-FC storage array that has a switched
    non-shared backplane, which most use SAS to interconnect.

    My 2 Cent$

    Cheers, Bill














    On Feb 2, 5:32 pm, dvymil...@yahoo.com wrote:
    > I know this is a broad question, but here goes...
    >
    > If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an
    > enterprise.... NAS or SAN?
    >
    > What is generally more flexible and easier to manage?
    >
    > Dvy




  15. Re: nav vs san

    On Feb 3, 3:32 am, dvymil...@yahoo.com wrote:
    > I know this is a broad question, but here goes...
    >
    > If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an
    > enterprise.... NAS or SAN?
    >
    > What is generally more flexible and easier to manage?
    >
    > Dvy


    ...Hi Dvy,

    Its better to have a NAS than SAN, if performance is not so important.
    Infact, SAN costs much than a NAS.
    I think its better to have a NAS with fault tolerance configured and
    with regular data back up, would do..

    Thanks,
    Edwin..


  16. Re: nav vs san

    The question is not only a performance one, it is also the type of data that
    is being accessed as well. You will usually find databases on DAS or SAN
    unless it has fairly low transactions. NAS is usually more for file/print
    type data. iSCSI is an alternative to SANs and the cost is somewhere in
    between.

    This is a broad question and you really need to look at the applications
    that are running the business. Once you know the applications and understand
    their requirements, you can then design a SAN that is best suited for the
    business

    Regards,

    Rick
    wrote in message
    news:1172042415.779557.235530@k78g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
    > On Feb 3, 3:32 am, dvymil...@yahoo.com wrote:
    >> I know this is a broad question, but here goes...
    >>
    >> If performance were not an issue, what is better to stick to in an
    >> enterprise.... NAS or SAN?
    >>
    >> What is generally more flexible and easier to manage?
    >>
    >> Dvy

    >
    > ..Hi Dvy,
    >
    > Its better to have a NAS than SAN, if performance is not so important.
    > Infact, SAN costs much than a NAS.
    > I think its better to have a NAS with fault tolerance configured and
    > with regular data back up, would do..
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Edwin..
    >




+ Reply to Thread