Printable View
Hi everyone i need some basic advice if possible, we are in the process of upgrading our storage at the moment we have dell powervault 745 nas units for our users data that they access via a windows 2003 dfs root all works ok, which way do i go i want to use the open-e on some supermicro servers but should i continue using them in a NAS mode or should i start using iSCSI any suggestions etc
thanks
stevef1
Well… iSCSI or NAS shoudl be quite clear if you take into account that you can't mount an iSCSI volume on more than one computer at the same time, except if you run some special file system on it, called a cluster file system like StoreNext from ADIC, Xsan from Apple, or a similar product for Microsoft.
If you want the share to be accessible from different computers at the same time, you'll stay with NAS if you want fast and flexible storage to a dedicated computer, iSCSI is the choice (at least for me).
Cheers,
budy
buddy is correct
if you want your users to share files then go with NAS
If you want to create a playpen for each of your user to access then go iSCSI
iSCSI is block based and if you have multiple users accessing the same file, then changes made by user 1 will not be seen by user 2, unless you have filesharing software.
That is the way all iSCSI works.
If you need both then go with DSS, you can have both iSCSI and NAS volumes running at the same time. (like going both ways)
Thanks for that buddy, symm an idea i had would be to mount the iscsi drive on a windows 2003 or 2008 server as a 1tb (or more) drive and put the users home folders on that drive then point our dfs to the shares on the drive, would this be a problm doing things this way any performance issues i'm going to use gigabit from server to dss units or should i create several smaller iscsi drives for different user groups and mount them as drives?
I like the idea of using iscsi and the failover/backup functions it has (failover not available yet for nas yet).
stevef1
Of course, if it is mounted on a windows box before being shared out again, then you still have a single point of failure, don't you? I doubt performance would be better that way, anyway.
You're probably better going with NAS, since you have fewer failure points and also don't have to use a windows server. Within a year, NAS autofailover will be out. I'd go for the NAS, if possible. It's one of the most flexible options (dss has built-in rsync capability and data backup capability and even some level of AntiVirus protection that is only available for NAS volumes).