| 1 |
Am 11.06.2013 16:19, schrieb Nick Khamis: |
| 2 |
> Hello Everyone, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Was wondering what people are running these days, and how do they |
| 5 |
> compare to the 10,000 dollar SAN boxes. We are looking to build a fiber |
| 6 |
> san using IET and glusterFS, and was wondering what kind of luck people |
| 7 |
> where having using this approach, or any for that matter. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Kind Regards, |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Nick. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Hello Nick, |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
the question is, what are you doing with it and why do you think you |
| 16 |
need a fibre channel SAN. |
| 17 |
Our goal indeed is to get rid of the SAN infrastructure as it is |
| 18 |
delicately to all kinds of failure with nearly zero fault tolerance. |
| 19 |
An example, you have an hicup or a power failure in your network. SAN is |
| 20 |
dead from nowon and must be reinitialized on the server. Simple NFS |
| 21 |
comes back up without any fuzz. |
| 22 |
Another, you boot your storage systems due to an os update or something |
| 23 |
like that. Your SAN will be dead. NFS will just go on as if nothing |
| 24 |
happened. |
| 25 |
We use netapp storage systems which are NAS and SAN capable. |
| 26 |
Another point is, that if you have a SAN lun, there is either no way to |
| 27 |
increase or decrease size on the fly, on cifs or nfs you can resize your |
| 28 |
share on the go. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
So if you do not have a _really_ good reason to use a fribre channel |
| 31 |
SAN, don't! |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Norman |
Archives