IBM DS3400, NetApp FAS2050, or Equillogic PS6000XV for Production Environment

[CLS11]

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,

[AntonVZhbankov]

NetApp has hardware deduplication, so 5TB can become 6 or 8 or even 20 TB, depending on your actual data.

---

MCSA, MCTS, VCP, VMware vExpert '2009

http://blog.vadmin.ru

[IRIX201110141]

The DS3400 isnt on the HCL for vSphere so i dont know if is a good idea for your "production" environment. You didnt mentioned the use of Apps like MS SQL or MS Exchange. If you have them ask your storage vendor if he any special support for it. Consider license cost for storage functions like snapshots, cloning, replication and so on.

For planing a fabric consider the use of 2 switches (FC or LAN) instead of one.

How many ESX(i) Hosts are you planing on?

Regards

Joerg

'Remember if you found this or others answers helpful do not forget to award points by marking an answer as helpful or correct'

[mreferre]

To set the record straight the DS3400 is indeed on the HCL and it has been for a while. Maybe you are confusing it with the iSCSI- based DS3300 (which is not on the HCL).

To this point I would probably suggest that, if you are going to stick with 3 servers, the best option might be the DS3300 (SAS-based) which is on the HCL and would not require external switches. See pg 10 of this PDF:

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/resources/systems_storage_disk_ds3000_pdf_config.pdf

From a performance perspective I doubt very much you will see a difference (it's 3Gbit Vs 4Gbit). Spend your money on the spindles.

FC is not faster than SAS.... it's better when it comes to large deployments, fabrics, interconnects, etc etc. For a simple deployment like yours SAS is the way to go (in my opinion).

You may want to have a look at the BC-S as well but I think that would be too limited for you in terms of disks expansions (http://it20.info/blogs/main/archive/2008/11/14/162.aspx)

Massimo.

[CLS11]

Sorry for the delay in replying - I have been out with the flu.

Right now we are looking at 3-4 esxi servers. As far as databases running, we do have a couple (GroupWise eMail and our Student Mgmt. system), both of which are heavily used.

Regarding 3300 vs 3400, I want to stick with a product that is on the compatibility list.

I guess the biggest questions are:

1. Is the NetApp FAS2050 fast enough to keep up with the server requests, or is the IBM rep blowing smoke? (see original post)

2. Do people that have a NetApp unit use the software features, or do they simply use the tools available within Vmware (snapshot, etc)?

With our current quotes, we can get almost twice the raw space with the IBM DS3400 than with the NetApp FAS2050 for less cost. NetApp raw is 6TB vs IBM raw of 10.8TB.

[mreferre]

I am sorry.

DS3300 (SAS-based) which is on the HCL

That was a typo. I meant:

DS3200 (SAS-based) which is on the HCL

The DS3200 (SAS-based) is what I was suggesting you to have a look at (and yes the 3200 is on the HCL).

The only limitation is that you can direct attach up to 3 hosts.

Massimo.

[ablej]

Personally I would go with the Netapp FAS2050. I would consider NFS on Netapp you'll see even better dedupe rates and is very easy to manage. With your environment consisting mostly of Windows VM's it's possible to see up to 70%-80% in deduplication savings. You may also want to get pricing from IBM NSeries which is a Netapp device just branded with IBM face plate. If you would like more on Netapp NFS just let me know.

David Strebel

www.holy-vm.com

If you find this information useful, please award points for "correct" or "helpful"

[CLS11]

The problem is that the NetApp solution is 6TB raw and is $21,000 more than the IBM that has 10TB raw. Even with deduplication, I cannot see that making up the difference in cost. For the $21,000 I could add another shelf to the IBM and end up with over 20TB of raw space.

I do like the ease of use with NFS and the fact that the dedup saved space shows on the VMDK. The point that I am struggling with is do the benefits of NFS (ease of use) and the backend software features available on the NetApp justify the cost of the NetApp unit. Do users of the NetApp unit use the software regularly or is it more of a "once setup" the features do not get used. As far as software bundles, we are looking at NFS, Server Pack and Foundation Pack.

We have received quotes for the IBM N Series and that goes back to my original post where the IBM rep said that he does not recommend the NetApp 2050, but rather the 2040, or in his case, the N3300. The 2040/N3300 really jumps the pricing which makes the DS3400 look even better.

[AntonVZhbankov]

>For the $21,000 I could add another shelf to the IBM and end up with over 20TB of raw space.

Add place in the rack, electricity, cooling, support contract, ports cost... What would be TCO?

Are you sure you won't be fell in love with some NetApp features IBM just doesn't have?

---

MCSA, MCTS, VCP, VMware vExpert '2009

http://blog.vadmin.ru

[ablej]

I agree with Anton here you also need to look at the foot print of the storage and look at cost savings. Also Netapp's Snap Manager for VI is great for a backup solution. You can restore VM's within minutes with SMVI. With version 2.0 it can also do file level restores. Also if you plan to do DR in the future Netapp Snap Mirror works great. I have nothing against IBM storage, but I just don't think that it's best suited for virtual infrastructures.

David Strebel

www.holy-vm.com

If you find this information useful, please award points for "correct" or "helpful"

[CLS11]

Anton and David - Thanks!

I do not know what software features I will find useful, so this is exactly the kind of feedback I am looking for!

I am also looking for feedback regarding the NetApp 2050 vs the NetApp 2040. According to the IBM rep, the 2050 is not suited for large vmware environments. Any experience with this?

[AntonVZhbankov]

Unfortunately can't help you more - have no real experience with NetApp. I'm stuck with HP storage.

---

MCSA, MCTS, VCP, VMware vExpert '2009

http://blog.vadmin.ru

[ablej]

It depends on your worload. What type of VM's will you be hosting MSSQL,Oracle,Exchange,file, AD, etc? Are you looking at a Active/Active or single controller? Will you be consolidating any other kind of data on the Netapp such as Cifs or SQL Luns? How much will you be expanding over five years? The major difference between the 2050 and 2040 is the expandibility.

David Strebel

www.holy-vm.com

If you find this information useful, please award points for "correct" or "helpful"

[CLS11]

We were told the major difference between the 2050 and the 2040 is the controller and that the 2050 could have issues keeping up with requests. We are going to be running a total of about 75 virtual servers - mixed Windows, NetWare, SQL, and GroupWise on the storage device. We are a school, so we get hit hard every hour for class change/login as well as quarterly during grading and reporting.

[djaquays]

We currently have a NetApp FAS2050 (2, in fact) one that runs our production VMs (NFS) and another that is our offsite DR (snapmirror) and backup (snapvault) target. We have 5 ESX hosts and about 40 VMs that are either SLE, Windows Server or NetWare. If our CPU usage averages 10%, it's been a crazy day. Normally the average sits around 3-5%. That being said.. if I had the option to go back and do things over again.. I would have waited a couple more months for the 2040 to come out. FAR more flexible and allows you to use the 24 drive SAS trays instead of the 14 drive FC trays without sacrificing connectivity to iscsi/nfs clients (by using the single PCIx slot).

[niklos]

I would go for a Sun Unified Storage 7000-Series. Or you could buy a server and install OpenSolaris and create your own unified storage plattform. You will get almost all the NetApp features without having to licens them. Soon Deduplication and FC will be available, without additional licenses. I would go for the Sun Unified Storage 7310 because of its scalability.

There is also a Unified Storage simulator which you could try. http://www.sun.com/storage/disk_systems/unified_storage/resources.jsp

I believe that running your vms over nfs will be enough but if you really need iScsi or FC the Sun Box will do the trick for you, you just add a FC-HBA and of you go. And by the way you can use the Sun box as a fileserver.

I hope you have not already made up your mind and opened you wallet.

[dcy99]

Hi,

We are in a similiar situation between the Netapp FAS2040 and the IBM DS3500.

Are you able to tell me if you went with the DS series or the Netapp, and what you think of your choice?

Thanks

[kesparlat]

I dont know the prices of the machines which I work. But my recomendation is that DS3500 is a entry level storage, maybe you can go with a DS5020 that is a very powerful storage.

For me IBM storage gives the best performance in all their Disk Systems, this is because they don't have "intelligence" in their systems and all the power is dedicated for disk access, systems like HP EVA, and EMC are easy to work with because their own "intelligence", but gives a poor performance.

I hope this helps.