EcioBNI
Contributor
Contributor

Help comparing storage (apple to apple...)

Hello,

our society is in the process of evaluating two storage solutions for our virtualization (and consolidation) project: the storage will host the vmware infrastructure and maybe one sql server, all connected via iSCSI (no FC). We were also thinkin about using the storage to host a windows file server (CIFS protocol)

One partner based his solution on a Netapp FAS3020C (C=clustered), the other one proposed a EMC Celerra NS20 or NS40 with 2 blades for HA (so NS22 / NS42).

I already know Netapp products (i've used a 3020C in the past) while i've never used an EMC storage; i thought the second partner would propose a Clariion CX but they chose the Celerra line (maybe because of the CIFS requirements...or maybe because it's cheaper?). I know that Celerra uses Clariion as his "data subsystem" but AFAIK usually FAS3000 line is positioned as mid-tier enterprise storage and is generally compared to Clariion CX3 line (both for FC and iSCSI SAN). Celerra, and most of all the "small" NS20, looks like more.. let me say..."entry-level".

I'd like to know your opinion about this kind of solution: do you think i'ts an apple-to-apple comparison or not?

Thank you in advance

0 Kudos
4 Replies
Rodos
Expert
Expert

I am no SAN expert but know a bit about the EMC SANs. Not a fan of the NS20 and NS40 at all, as you mention they are effectively a NAS front ending a CX. Wont go into all the reasons.

The reason they probably went for this was because you added the CIFS. Why not just use a VM off a LUN unless you want to use some of the extra features such as the replication et al. The new AX4-5 is probably much better suited to your requirements. Check it out on the comparison page.

Let us know how you get on.

Considering awarding points if this is of use

Rodos {size:10px}{color:gray}Consider the use of the helpful or correct buttons to award points. Blog: http://rodos.haywood.org/{color}{size}
0 Kudos
EcioBNI
Contributor
Contributor

Hi Rodos,

you got it right, there are some reason for our choice of putting CIFS fileserver on the storage:

-the HA of the clustered storage is superior to standalone (physical or virtual) machine

-we will use all the internal advanced feature of the storage (snapshot, replica to a DR site etc..) also for CIFS data

AX4 looks entry level too, and it doesnt seem fully redundant

0 Kudos
Rodos
Expert
Expert

You can configure the AX4 for redundancy. Was not suggesting that the AX4 was equilivant to the Netapp, just that it might be more appropriate than the NS20.

Considering awarding points if this is of use

Rodos {size:10px}{color:gray}Consider the use of the helpful or correct buttons to award points. Blog: http://rodos.haywood.org/{color}{size}
0 Kudos
arnoobbb
Contributor
Contributor

AX4 comes in redundant configuration, it can support up to 60TB..uses SAS and SATA drives....the CX3-10c would probably be the next step up. good luck

0 Kudos