[TriLUG] [OT] iSCSI SAN recomendations

Mike Seda maseda at gmail.com
Thu Aug 16 13:59:24 EDT 2007


All,
Apparently, I made an erroneous statement in my last email. I mentioned
running icscid (only an initiator) on my fileserver. I actually meant an
iSCSI *target* daemon such as IET (http://iscsitarget.sourceforge.net) or
UNH (http://unh-iscsi.sourceforge.net).

Of course, I haven't even tested either package yet, but plan to once the ST
6140 arrives.

Mike


On 8/15/07, Mike Seda <maseda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chris,
> Yes. The NetApp FAS 3020 is a good product, but you may want to consider
> the FAS 2050, which is so new that it hasn't made it on the NetApp website
> yet. Although, it *is* purchasable.
>
> The 2050 only scales up to 104 drives versus the 3020's 168 drives, but
> that may still work for you.
>
> Also, the 2050 supports SATA-II, FC, *and* SAS drives, whereas the 3020
> only supports SATA-II and FC drives. Just something to think about.
>
> I actually just purchased a Sun ST 6140 (http://www.sun.com/storagetek/disk_systems/midrange/6140),
> which I will attach to one of my SAN switches. Then, I will toss some LUNs
> from it to my Dell PE 2850 fileserver running nfsd, smbd, and iscsid. I will
> also give some additional LUNs from it to my Oracle database and Bacula
> backup servers via FC (since they already have FC HBAs).
>
> This solution was much cheaper than the FAS 2050.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
>
> On 8/15/07, OlsonE at aosa.army.mil <OlsonE at aosa.army.mil> wrote:
> >
> > You hit it on the head! Their volume resizing options amongst other
> > things won me over. When you get into other things like replicating to a
> > different geographical area ....NetApp makes itself known!
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: trilug-bounces at trilug.org [mailto:trilug-bounces at trilug.org] On
> > Behalf Of David Brain
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:54 AM
> > To: Triangle Linux Users Group discussion list
> > Subject: Re: [TriLUG] [OT] iSCSI SAN recomendations
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/15/07, Magnus <magnus at trilug.org> wrote:
> > > OlsonE at aosa.army.mil wrote:
> > > > Coming from someone who's implemented both EMC (CX300 / CX700), and
> > > > NetApp (FAS270c / FAS3020), I'd have to say you'd be better off
> > > > going with NetApp for a few reasons:
> > >
> > > I completely agree with this, having been in both EMC and Netapp shops
> >
> > > in the past.  It works, it works very well, is easy to learn and easy
> > > to integrate into your shop, and comes at a fair price.
> > > --
> >
> > Yes, we went with NetApp too - currently have a 3020 with ~4TB attached.
> > We did some fairly extensive research into both NetApp and EMC, and from
> >
> > what I could see NetApp looked to have a the far simpler setup and
> > interface.  However it did appear that the EMC box allowed a lot more
> > very low level config options - which might be important if you have
> > 'special' needs.  However we really didn't need that, and in some
> > respects the NetApp was considerably more flexible (for example the out
> > of the box ISCSI support and some of the volume resizing options).
> >
> > Also my experience with their  support has on the whole been very good.
> >
> > David.
> > --
> > TriLUG mailing list        :
> > http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member
> > Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
> > --
> > TriLUG mailing list        :
> > http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> > TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
> >
>
>



More information about the TriLUG mailing list