From: Please Sun (sunsolve@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 11 2002 - 06:36:05 EDT
Hello Admin,
Thanks for your reply ..
<<< Question >>>
We consider to purchase a storage to increase disk
capacity and performance on our unix environment,
i.e Solaris and Redhat Linux.
We have three options:
1) NAS - Netapp 810
2) NAS - EMC IP4700
3) Direct-attached - Sun 280R + EMC FC4700
My question is,
1) Is NAS storage suitable for Pure UNIX
environment
2) Can NAS storage have any issue for
a) Symbolic link
b) ufsdump and ufsrestore
3) Netapp 810 Vs EMC IP4700
4) NAS Vs Direct-attached
5) Any other issue I need to consider
<<< From: Uwe Weber >>>
<1> Since the NAS-box acts as an NFS-server,
it's of course suitable in an UNIX Environement.
<2a> Same as with any other NFS-Server.
<3b> Ther is no use in ufsdumping NFS mounts. Depending
on your backup strategy and tools either use your
backup tools agent for Netapp (if it's got one)
or the NetApp supplied tools on the filer.
<3> There have been issues regarding the Clariions 4700.
Do a search on comp.arch.storage and visit
gunbrowker.com. They had severe data losses because
of problems with their Clariions.
<4> Most of the time, NAS is much easier to administer.
NetApp NAS will be more expensive in hardware and
maintenance fees than DAS. You should analyze how
much you 're going to save in administration costs
and storage related downtime through using NAS.
<5> If going for a Clariion (or any other FC-based
solution), do you have people trained to work with
the FC stuff? If not, stick with NAS, almost any
admin knows how to work with fileshares over
ether + ip.
<o> You might want to have a look at HDS Thunder
storage combined with microstore NAS.
<<< From: Sean Quaint >>>
I've worked with NetApp and Procom. Check out the
NetForce1750. I think they are easier to admin and
just as effective for the money. Plus, they are wicked
fast. NAS does work well with Unix. You will not be
able to use ufsdump, however, since ufsdump does not
backup NFS mounted file systems. So, you'll have to
use tar or cpio if you want to use standard tools.
NetBackup works well with NAS devices, however, you'll
hae to purchase either NetBackup Datacenter if you want
to backup the NAS via NFS, or the NDMP module if you
want to back it up to a directly attached tape drive.
<<< From: Christophe Dupre >>>
my take on this... NAS is almost always a so-so idea,
especially if the data provided by the NAS is for one
or a small number of servers. In this case, you're
adding another source of problem (network switch) for
small benefits. However, if you're exporting the data
to a large number of machines, NAS can make sense
(but is usually more expense than server+attached
storage).
directly-atached storage is good for small storage
(i.e. 20GB of mail data for example). It doesn't
scale well.
My favorite: SAN. A SAN is not that much more expensive
than DAS, and usually less than a NAS. SAN gives you a
lot of bandwidth with a very small overhead (compared to
NAS). It also makes it easy to move data from one machine
to another, or share it for recovery or backup purposes.
I have no personnal experience with the two models of
equipment below. NAS works good in a Unix environment.
It looks as if an NFS server is on the oher side,
so permissions, symlinks etc are kept. Backup however is
often very slow.
<<< From: Scott Croft >>>
We have been having extraordinary success with the NetApp
and EMC is a pain to deal with.
<<< From: Paul Galjan >>>
The IP4700 proved highly unstable in my NFSv3-only
environment. Two different machines crashed about 6 times
in 8 months, the last time resulting in complete loss of
data on one volume. Do a search on "IP4700 Horror story"
on groups.google.com for more details of my adventure.
They've since replaced it with an FC4700, frontended by a
single E220 I had laying around. The jury is still out on
its performance, but I've yet to get better than 15 MB/s
from that setup.
I like NAS in general, and I've heard good things about the
NetApp. However, the EMC and NetApps are very expensive for
what you get. Today's disk capacities allow greater than
1TB in a traditional ~$10k SCSI enclosure. Slap on Veritas
or QFS, and you're fine.
A big advantage DAS with a Sun frontend has is that I can
upgrade the Sun host at will, with very little cost (compare
upgrading a Netapp or IP4700 to gigabit ethernet to upgrading
a single sun host with Gigabit ethernet).
Two drawbacks:
1. Scalability is limited to 2 TB unless you have a FC host.
2. Hardware redundancy is harder to achieve; but keep in mind
that hardware failure accounts for only 10% of downtime.
You cannot use ufsdump with NAS, unless you've rolled your
own with a Sun host. Symlinks are part of NFS, so you
shouldn't have a problem.
If you're looking for a robust and scalable, but less
expensive option to the NEtApp and FC4700, look at the
LSI MetaStor or the SToragetek 9176. Direct attach it to
one or more Sun hosts, and put QFS or Veritas on it.
<<< From: Riddoch, John E >>>
Well, we've used a variety of NAS stuff here, including:
- Auspex
- Sun + T3 storage
- IBM + SSA storage
In regards to your questions:
1) Yes, NAS is suitable for Unix, provided it's designed to
handles NFS etc.
2a) Symlinks work fine, again provided it's designed to
handle Unix.
2b) ufsdump likely won't work, so you'll have to find some
other backup method.
As far as direct attach vs NAS, NAS gives greater flexibility
but less performance. A SAN gives flexibility, but with the
performance. It's also more complex and probably more
expensive to start off with.
<<< From: Chris Hoogendyk >>>
we have had some major fights here over that question. no
resolution as yet. money vaporized.
<<< From: Jeremy Jin >>>
That depends on what OS the NAS uses. If the NAS runs a
unix-like OS (for example, some NAS are actually linux box),
then it would be totally compatible with pure unix environment,
and no problem with symbolic link. But probably they don't use
UFS, so ufsdump/ufsrestore won't work. I have no knowledge
with your other questions.
<<< From: Jay Lessert >>>
1) Sure. NFS was *invented* for Unix, in Unix.
2a) No.
2b) NetApp does it's own dump and restore. Don't know about EMC.
3) NetApp is faster in real life.
NetApp is far easier to administer.
NetApp is cheaper (last time I looked, over a year ago).
NetApp snapshots are far more useful than EMC.
4) I don't understand. If you only have one computer, than
Direct-attached is probably fine. If you have more than
one computer, how can you not have NAS?
<<< From: Jeff Kennedy >>>
We use NetApp 880 and 840 filers for our Unix environment,
they work great. I highly recommend them over EMC and
direct attached.
Best regards,
K.W.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 23:24:55 EDT