New storage... what about file server
-
Hi Guys,
We just changed our old Qnap NAS server to brand new High-performance storage.
what file server do you guys use?
I can just use Windows server and share folder but I like to hear your voice before taking action
Thx
-
@gros96 if you've been using a nas and just purchased a server without any plan on how you're going to use it you need to take a step back and get a better understanding of what your business needs.
While anyone could recommend a Linux distro or Windows, more details would be needed.
-
Why high performance storage? What makes it high performance?
Compared to Qnap, almost anything is likely to be higher performing.
I'm with Dustin - knowing pretty much the whole plan before hardware purchased ensure you are buying the right hardware.
For example, why would a ReadyNAS not have done the job for you? one less component to worry about (the OS).
The shear fact that you're talking about Windows running that cost isn't a factor.
-
Hi
Sorry I didn't been clear about what I have and what I need.
When we bought the equipment, we decided to change our architecture.
In the past, all our servers had local storage and connected with a 1GB \2GBLDAP connection.Today, we are working with Main storage (SC5020) connected to Servers with a 25GB bandwidth.
Everything plays amazing!
The only aspect I left with is the file server. When we purchased the equipment, our solution to share files was a windows server, but I like to discuss other options before I'm taking this step.
have to say, QNAP has never been a good match for our company, but overall I have nothing but a good thing to say about it
-
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
SC5020
Why is the file server not part of your SAN solution?
How many hosts do you have connected to your SAN?
-
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
In the past, all our servers had local storage and connected with a 1GB \2GBLDAP connection.
Today, we are working with Main storage (SC5020) connected to Servers with a 25GB bandwidth.
Are you sharing a single 25 GB connection for both SAN and network traffic?
-
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
Hi Guys,
We just changed our old Qnap NAS server to brand new High-performance storage.
what file server do you guys use?
I can just use Windows server and share folder but I like to hear your voice before taking actionThx
We never roll out Windows for file serving. If customers already have it, whatever. But that's a great spot where Windows is adding no benefit over something faster, safer, easier to manage, and cheaper.
-
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
In the past, all our servers had local storage and connected with a 1GB \2GBLDAP connection.
As it should always be. Storage should all but never be remote to the servers. Even a decade ago when doing that was popular it was the "by the book" worst thing to do. Today, it's still a worst practice, but isn't popular anymore as the trend to ignore the best practices has neded.
Local storage is always the fastest and the safest (and the cheapest.)
-
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
Today, we are working with Main storage (SC5020) connected to Servers with a 25GB bandwidth.
SC5020 is a SAN. High performance and SAN are opposing concepts. One of the most important things you have to decide when accepting the idea of a SAN is that you are adding a new, extra layer of latency between your server(s) and the storage that slows it down. Remember that the SC5020 uses the same disks as your server, and is just a server itself with all of the overhead that any other server has. So anything the 5020 can do, local storage could do even better.
-
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
Everything plays amazing!
Not because the new setup is good, but because you are comparing it to a QNAP. It's all still really expensive, fragile, and slow compared to a baseline file server.
-
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
The only aspect I left with is the file server. When we purchased the equipment, our solution to share files was a windows server, but I like to discuss other options before I'm taking this step.
You should have engaged people at the architecture step. You've already bought everything except the license and NOW you are asking for guidance? All of the really, really important parts are already done (and literally I just wrote this chapter in the textbook on this last week and used this exact setup as an example of the stock worst design that people do - so you literally just rolled out the actual textbook example of what never to do) and the part you are asking about (Windows or non-Windows) really makes essentially no difference.
-
@dashrender said in New storage... what about file server:
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
SC5020
Why is the file server not part of your SAN solution?
How many hosts do you have connected to your SAN?
SAN, by definition, cannot be a file server.
-
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
have to say, QNAP has never been a good match for our company, but overall I have nothing but a good thing to say about it
It's not a good match for anyone. That's why it isn't considered IT equipment, it's just a toy. High cost, low performance, little to no support. The danger in things like a QNAP is that it sets a low expectation for IT performance that is so dramatically off the mark, that it makes it easy to get lost and to think that "doing better than what you did before" is a guideline, rather than "doing well compared to industry standards."
The approach you have now is what's called an Inverted Pyramid of Doom, or a 3-2-1 Design, one commonly knows as a scam run by vendors (Dell especially is famous for pulling this trick on their customers who let salesman design systems instead of IT folks) to sell tons of high cost gear where far, far less would perform better and be safer. What you had before was just a worse Inverted Pyramid of Doom. So because this is so much better than how bad that was before, it hides the fact that this likely cost 400-500% more than an even faster, even more reliable system that would be simpler to manage.
-
Some IPOD articles...
https://blog.storagecraft.com/making-the-best-of-your-inverted-pyramid-of-doom/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/inverted-pyramid-doom-tom-larson/
https://shawnsbrain.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/the-inverted-pyramid-of-doom-ipod/
https://smbitjournal.com/2013/06/the-inverted-pyramid-of-doom
https://smbitjournal.com/2016/06/the-emperors-new-storage/
https://smbitjournal.com/2013/06/when-to-consider-a-san/
https://smbitjournal.com/2013/07/replicated-local-storage/
https://smbitjournal.com/2012/05/when-no-redundancy-is-more-reliable/
-
-
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in New storage... what about file server:
@dashrender said in New storage... what about file server:
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
SC5020
Why is the file server not part of your SAN solution?
How many hosts do you have connected to your SAN?
SAN, by definition, cannot be a file server.
Not what I meant -
Why is a VM that's part of the hosts that use the SAN not acting as your file server? -
@dashrender said in New storage... what about file server:
@scottalanmiller said in New storage... what about file server:
@dashrender said in New storage... what about file server:
@gros96 said in New storage... what about file server:
SC5020
Why is the file server not part of your SAN solution?
How many hosts do you have connected to your SAN?
SAN, by definition, cannot be a file server.
Not what I meant -
Why is a VM that's part of the hosts that use the SAN not acting as your file server?Isn't it? I didn't see him suggest that it wasn't.
