Choosing a SAN - Dell, NetApp, ?

[TomBodet]

I'm stuck.

We've been given the go on a new development network/environment. I'm struggling with a SAN for what would start as a 2 host environment. The core of this environment will be a handful of service related servers (AD, DHCP, DNS, Printers, etc...) There will also be a code repo and bug tracking database.

Moving forward we will start hosting database / app servers for development and testing. The main issue I have is this is contract work, so I will not know the amount of space I need in the future. The code repo VM is roughly 150G and it technically doesn't need to be, it's that size to have multiple repo backups at a time and because I didn't know how much code we'd end up storing. Right now I think the actual database is 15G. What I forsee is more width than depth, in other words, more VM instances that are of a small size (say 30-50G on average). For the most part there will be an app server for every database server, but not every time so there will be more databases than anything. Each contract has no more than a dozen people, in many cases only 6-8 so there will not be high demand. Worst case will be when a project tests. At that time they bring in a number of subject matter experts to test their solution, then you could have 30 or so at a time. One caveat, larger projects will mostly have their own hardware budget, so they will simply have their own infrastructure so it's these smaller type projects that will use this space.

What's on the table at this time is a NetApp 2020HA plus a 2020 with SATA drives as a secondary site. I've also been talking to Dell (Equalogic) and they've come in and made a similar setup with their 4000XV and a secondary using a 4000E with 8-1TB drives. I also have a call into EMC with their NX4, but have not seen a price yet. The above solutions fall within a few thousand of 40k which is my price point. The NetApp gives me 1.7TB of net useable space, I have not gotten a figure on the Dell yet but it's guaranteed to be at least a little more since their unit has 4 more drive bays (using 450G 15k drives BTW).

I'm trying to balance out usability, expandability, redundancy and 'bang for the buck' to make this work. I've never bought a SAN before so I'm a little overwhelmed.

Anyone care to comment or add some enlightenment? This will be an iSCSI implementation, I'm not sure that fiber in this instance is warranted....and even if so, if it's affordable.

Thanks.

[dnetz]

Hi,

Have you considered NFS at all? There are a lot of advantages to setup and maintenance and should perform just as good as iSCSI. We're running Netapp 2040 (dual heads) as primary storage and 2020 as secondary on two seperate clusters and they're performing admirably. We're saving a lot of space (40-60%) with dedup (Netapp calls this A-SIS) and the Snapmanager for Virtual Infrastructures software makes backup and restore easy. Netapp is usually considered expensive but in my experience it's often worth it, we switched from another brand I won't mention here and it's like night and day. I can't answer for the other storage vendors, but I can recommend looking into NFS atleast.

Hope it helps!

===

If you find this information useful, please award points for "correct" or "helpful".

[TomBodet]

Thanks dnetz. Again I'm new to new to any kind of attached storage so maybe I made a mistake by lumping everything into the iSCSI bucket. You did notice I listed a 2020 right? So that option is available to me, I guess I'm just being generic when I say iSCSI meaning we don't have the budget for fiber, so I need an ethernet based solution.

The thing that has me wrapped around the axle the most is the available space. I have no way of predicting how much we'll use in a year, let alone 2-3. I also don't know what the upper managment attitude towards spending more money is going to be. We've never hosted a real environment before, it's always been: Find free gear, start up a service on it and then worry about it when it breaks. So the whole proactive thing (ongoing support contracts, maintenance upgrades, expansion, etc...) is going to be a huge change of pace that I'm not sure they are aware of. (I'm not the one dealing with management, I'm just a peon) The last time I managed to get a manager to get me some hardware, they got chewed out for spending the money. That was about 20k, now we're talking about at least that every other year or so.

That's really the only reason I'm looking at the Dell unit. It's got more space up front so I can coast longer with it...but I do like the NetApp.

[RParker]

Again I'm new to new to any kind of attached storage so maybe I made a mistake by lumping everything into the iSCSI bucket.

Not necessarily. iSCSI is just a protocol, same as NFS. If you have the ability to use iSCSI you can use NFS instead, less headache, same infrastructure. Most likely if you are looking at SAN iSCSI / NFS is an option for ALL SAN, the only one that is different is Fiber.

I would look at compellent That's what you want:

I wouldn't go Netapp, they SAY they they are integrated with VM Ware but they are very slow and their support has a lot of holes. There are other products that are better (and less expensive) than Netapp.

The thing that has me wrapped around the axle the most is the available space. I have no way of predicting how much we'll use in a year, let alone 2-3.

De duplication takes care of this (50-80% reduction in used space). What you want is storage that can adapt, another reason Netapp isn't a good choice, it's rather complicated (and limited).

but I do like the NetApp.

If you are new to this.. how do you KNOW you like the netapp, what appeals to you about Netapp, besides the fact that you are pretty much saying your management is "cheap", Netapp is one of the most expensive...

[TomBodet]

Again I'm new to new to any kind of attached storage so maybe I made a mistake by lumping everything into the iSCSI bucket.

Not necessarily. iSCSI is just a protocol, same as NFS. If you have the ability to use iSCSI you can use NFS instead, less headache, same infrastructure. Most likely if you are looking at SAN iSCSI / NFS is an option for ALL SAN, the only one that is different is Fiber.

I would look at compellent That's what you want:

I wouldn't go Netapp, they SAY they they are integrated with VM Ware but they are very slow and their support has a lot of holes. There are other products that are better (and less expensive) than Netapp.

Can you be a little more specific about their support?

I'm looking at compellent now, thank you for that, that's one of the things I needed (alternatives).

The thing that has me wrapped around the axle the most is the available space. I have no way of predicting how much we'll use in a year, let alone 2-3.

De duplication takes care of this (50-80% reduction in used space). What you want is storage that can adapt, another reason Netapp isn't a good choice, it's rather complicated (and limited).

but I do like the NetApp.

If you are new to this.. how do you KNOW you like the netapp, what appeals to you about Netapp, besides the fact that you are pretty much saying your management is "cheap", Netapp is one of the most expensive...

It's not actually the most expensive as all of the systems I've been looking at are in the same price range. Where NetApp does fall short is in net useable space. But realize that all I have to compare to is the Dell 4000, HP 4300, NetApp 2020 and as of yesterday the EMC NX4. The HP solution to me was the least attractive and EMC was too expensive. So comparing directly the Dell to the NetApp, Dell has more useable space but the NetApp has a much more linear expansion. With Dell I have to add another 4000, then after that I have to buy a 6000 from then on. NetApp I can add a controller (which comes with more disks like the Dell would) or I can just add a drive shelf. The 2020 I can upgrade the controller to the 2040; Dell has no such path.

Another side plus to the NetApp is there have been some rumblings about the client using NetApp gear more and more. Therefore it puts us in a position of knowing their software and setup. Not a huge deal, but a bonus none the less.

The 'cheap' bit comes down to them giving in to the fact they need this new environment so they gave in to the initial price tag. My concern is when we have to expand capacity. No matter what system we have, it's still going to cost similar money. The net useable space is something as a buffer. In other words, with the Dell I'm looking at an expansion in maybe 3-4 years instead of 2 with the NetApp.

NetApp has dedupe, I'm not sure what the complicated bit is. By limited are you referring to the fact it only dedupes per created volume, not across the whole array?

[PedalinPete]

Sounds like you've done your homework!

Rather than beat yourself up on this, why not present your findings to the client and let them decide and sign off on it? That way, if they run out of space in 2 years compared to 3 years, then they are responsible. (And if I am not mistaken, the NetApp devices can be daisychained together in the future).

Undoubtedly there are people who will say different vendors are better than others. In the grand scheme of things, they all do the same thing. One thing is clear though, they all want to make their product better than their competitor. So who's the winner? We are.

[kac2]

I feel your pain. I was stuck making a choice between NetApp, Dell, EMC, Nimbus, Xiotech, and Compellent this year.

I bit the bullett and went with NetApp. I feel that EMC and NetApp are the most tightly integrated storage partners for VMware. I ended up getting the FAS2020HA as well. the dude who came and set it up didn't know jack squat, so the consulting company we bought it from came in and cleaned up the mess. We're also seeing about 30% de-dup ratios. I've been pretty happy. See if you can get the 450GB 15K SAS drives. I wish we would have gotten those instead of the 300GB ones. Also, since the 2040 debuted, the FAS2020A should be accompanied by a nice free bundle package with a bunch of extra licenses such as NFS/CIFS etc. So instead of paying for the NFS license you get it for free. Also, NetApp arrays can be daisychained for more storage. So you can have a shelf of SAS for performance and a shelf of SATA for your cheap storage.

One place where Compellent stands out is their "fluid data" or what EMC is now trying to do with FAST. I didn't go with compellent, because like you, I didn't have even 10TB of data to store. With compellent, you can get a shelf of SSD, shelf of SAS or FC, shelf of SATA, and their storage system will move unused blocks to cheaper storage. If they start getting accessed alot, then they are moved into more performance storage. pretty cool feature. but one part that doesn't get brought up, is if you're company is doing something like "end of year processing" and needs to touch all those old blocks, it won't be as responsive.

It's a lot to take in when you are researching storage. each one has their own special set of features, just gotta choose your poisen because once you do, you're stuck with them for a little while.

[kculwell]

Just a note to add...we've run EqualLogic PS100s as members of a storage pool with PS6000s. First generation to latest, and they work just fine. Software and firmware/improvements are free for life. EQL will move volumes between different performing disks automatically as well. SAS to SATA, etc. and you can alter RAID levels on the fly to increase space. Adding new members (new arrays) takes about 5 minutes after racking and cabling the thing. I don't care for the compellent based on ease of use and configuration and the NetApp interface is just clunky. I would fully populate the drives up front, as it costs almost as much as the entire unit to add another 8 drives later.