1 |
> |
2 |
> Hello Nick, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> the question is, what are you doing with it and why do you think you |
5 |
> need a fibre channel SAN. |
6 |
> Our goal indeed is to get rid of the SAN infrastructure as it is |
7 |
> delicately to all kinds of failure with nearly zero fault tolerance. |
8 |
> An example, you have an hicup or a power failure in your network. SAN is |
9 |
> dead from nowon and must be reinitialized on the server. Simple NFS |
10 |
> comes back up without any fuzz. |
11 |
> Another, you boot your storage systems due to an os update or something |
12 |
> like that. Your SAN will be dead. NFS will just go on as if nothing |
13 |
> happened. |
14 |
> We use netapp storage systems which are NAS and SAN capable. |
15 |
> Another point is, that if you have a SAN lun, there is either no way to |
16 |
> increase or decrease size on the fly, on cifs or nfs you can resize your |
17 |
> share on the go. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> So if you do not have a _really_ good reason to use a fribre channel |
20 |
> SAN, don't! |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Regards, |
23 |
> Norman |
24 |
> |
25 |
> |
26 |
Hello Norman, |
27 |
|
28 |
Thank you so much for your response. That is a very interesting! We |
29 |
currently use an NFS to house home directories etc.., and I love how it |
30 |
just bloody works!!! We do however need block level sharing. The idea is |
31 |
the |
32 |
typical host with multiple VM with virtual HDDs residing on a SAN..... We |
33 |
figured |
34 |
fibre would give us better performance (for the mean time!!!). |
35 |
|
36 |
It was my understanding that SAN whether implemented using iSCSI |
37 |
or Fibre was essentially susceptible to the same type |
38 |
of faults that lead to whatever failures? The only difference being of |
39 |
course, on is on fibre, and the other using ethernet. Given the price |
40 |
of fibre right now, it's quite cheap and we though double the throughput, |
41 |
why not? |
42 |
|
43 |
We could have the VMs taking storage from DAS, and mount to an |
44 |
external NFS for home/ etc... Not sure how it would perform in terms of |
45 |
IO rates, and also, the idea of block level allocation just seems so much |
46 |
cleaner no? |
47 |
|
48 |
PS I am new to SAN, please excuse me. |
49 |
|
50 |
Kind Regards, |
51 |
|
52 |
Nick |