We are in the early stages of virtualizing our production environment (K-12) and are evaluating our storage options. We had a Capacity Planning study done and the recommendation is for 3 servers with 3TB of useable capacity. We are looking at virtualizing about 75 Windows servers and a few NetWare servers. The NetWare servers will become Windows servers down the road, but for now will remain NetWare. Initially we were looking at Fiber Channel for performance reasons, but from the Capacity Planning results, it looks like we will be fine with iSCSI. We have received pricing for the following units.
Dell Equillogic PS6000 with 16 450GB SAS drives: 4.7TB Useable in RAID 50 config.
NetApp FAS2050 with 20 450GB SAS Drives: 5TB Useable in RAID DP Config.
IBM DS3400 with 24 450GB SAS Drives: 9.45TB Useable in RAID 6 with Hot Spare.
We are going under the assumption that any of the above solutions will satisfy our needs, however; the IBM rep did say to be aware of the FAS2050 for large Vmware environments as he has concerns with the controller being able to keep up - he recommended a FAS2040 at a minimum if we go with NetApp. Is this accurate?
If we go with iSCSI, we will need a new core switch and if we go with Fiber Channel, we will need to purchase FC switches and the HBAs for the servers. When factoring in the software, support and any hardware needed to complete the storage solution, the total cost for the NetApp solution is the most expensive with the IBM and Equillogic solutions being about the same. We are leaning toward the IBM solution currently as it yields the most useable space for about the same total cost as the Equillogic and is fiber channel. Also, if we calculate the cost per TB of useable space, the IBM comes in at half the cost of the Equillogic and is 60% less than the NetApp.
Am I missing something in my decision? Is the software available and deduplication that is available on the NetApp worth 60% more per TB than the IBM solution? It is unlikely that we would be purchasing a 2^nd^ unit soon, so replication is not a big concern - we are looking at Double-Take for replicating critical servers. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Dell Equillogic PS6000 with 16 450GB SAS drives: 4.7TB Useable in RAID 50 config.
NetApp FAS2050 with 20 450GB SAS Drives: 5TB Useable in RAID DP Config.
IBM DS3400 with 24 450GB SAS Drives: 9.45TB Useable in RAID 6 with Hot Spare.
We are going under the assumption that any of the above solutions will satisfy our needs, however; the IBM rep did say to be aware of the FAS2050 for large Vmware environments as he has concerns with the controller being able to keep up - he recommended a FAS2040 at a minimum if we go with NetApp. Is this accurate?
If we go with iSCSI, we will need a new core switch and if we go with Fiber Channel, we will need to purchase FC switches and the HBAs for the servers. When factoring in the software, support and any hardware needed to complete the storage solution, the total cost for the NetApp solution is the most expensive with the IBM and Equillogic solutions being about the same. We are leaning toward the IBM solution currently as it yields the most useable space for about the same total cost as the Equillogic and is fiber channel. Also, if we calculate the cost per TB of useable space, the IBM comes in at half the cost of the Equillogic and is 60% less than the NetApp.
Am I missing something in my decision? Is the software available and deduplication that is available on the NetApp worth 60% more per TB than the IBM solution? It is unlikely that we would be purchasing a 2^nd^ unit soon, so replication is not a big concern - we are looking at Double-Take for replicating critical servers. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Tags:
netapp,
ds3400,
equillogic
