Network Storage
JupiterVast
have considered a RAID setup with our NT Server and I have also looked into
a separate RAID box. I have heard some bad things about NAS systems but I
believe that is another option. What option would be best for about 80-120GB
of centralized storage on our network?
Currently we have a lot of smaller drives on the network that act as file
servers. These systems have very full hard drives and performance is being
affected. I also need a storage system that will be cost effective. I
believe a NT RAID setup will be my cheapest route, but what do I need for
the amount of storage I desire?
My main questions:
What storage system would be best for about 80-120GB of centralized storage
on our network?
What do I need to establish an NT Server based RAID setup for the amount of
storage (80-120 GB) I desire?
Thanks for any suggestions.
Feel free to email me any responses. Thank you.
--
Jason Hindson
Computer Specialist
Tdata
614.885.1169
David Dillard
news:2Qv%4.16501$0T2.3...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> What storage system would be best for about 80-120GB of centralized
storage
> on our network?
That depends on your requirements:
- What kind of clients do you have?
- What kind of servers do you have?
- What kind of networking are you using?
- What kind of performance do you need?
- What kind of money are you willing to spend?
- Are you running any kind of application software from your servers? (DB,
web, email, etc.)
- How do you expect your storage needs to change in the next 1-2 years?
David A. Lethe
wrote:
I would also like to add ...
- What are your backup/recovery requirements?
- What are your availability requirements (i.e. 24x7
we-process-credit-card-transactions, or 8x5 at the other end of the
spectrum).
- How many clients/servers do you have of each time, and how do you
wish to distribute data between them.
- What and how much data (if any) needs to be shared?
JupiterVast
We do not have a central server, we are running a Peer-to-peer network. The
systems that are acting as file servers are nothing more than workstations
(NT 4.0 Workstation mostly)
We have an Ethernet network
We need performance to be fairly comparable to a local drive. But we are
flexible. Just not super slow.
We are looking for the cheapest route to centralized storage. A RAID box for
$5500 was too much that is all I know.
We run an Access 97 database from one of our computers
Storage needs will probably increase in the future. I estimate we currently
need around 35-50 GB of space that is why I am looking for something in the
80 - 120 GB range.
What are your thoughts? Right now I am leaning towards a software configured
RAID system using NT Server as being the cheapest route.
Jason Hindson
Computer Specialist
Tdata
614.885.1169
--
Jason Hindson
Computer Specialist
Tdata
614.885.1169
"David Dillard" <ddil...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:X7x%4.4001$bj.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
David A. Lethe
wrote:
>The clients are all Fat-Clients. Most of the software they need is local
>
>We do not have a central server, we are running a Peer-to-peer network. The
>systems that are acting as file servers are nothing more than workstations
>(NT 4.0 Workstation mostly)
>
>We have an Ethernet network
>
>We need performance to be fairly comparable to a local drive. But we are
>flexible. Just not super slow.
>
>We are looking for the cheapest route to centralized storage. A RAID box for
>$5500 was too much that is all I know.
>
>We run an Access 97 database from one of our computers
>
>Storage needs will probably increase in the future. I estimate we currently
>need around 35-50 GB of space that is why I am looking for something in the
>80 - 120 GB range.
>
>What are your thoughts? Right now I am leaning towards a software configured
>RAID system using NT Server as being the cheapest route.
>
>Jason Hindson
>Computer Specialist
>Tdata
>614.885.1169
>
If you want a minimum of 80GB, for less than $5,500, and performance
comparable to local attach ... then you are wasting our time.
David
JupiterVast
--
Jason Hindson
Computer Specialist
Tdata
614.885.1169
"David A. Lethe" <da...@santools.com> wrote in message
news:393f9b1...@news.iglobal.net...
JupiterVast
on the database, some source code, and the computer on which the drive
resides. Backup needs will probably be easier for us to address after we
have a system in place.
We need a system with 24/7 availability. We have jobs that run during the
night and weekends.
We have a network which consists of about 20-25 PC's in a peer-to-peer
network, with only one workgroup. In the next year that may grow 10-20 more
systems (this is probably a great over-estimate). We have one system which
the database resides on as well as most other shared files. This system
could be considered a file server. There are 6 other systems that store
shared data or act as smaller 'servers' on the network. To free up local
hard drive space and increase performance, these systems could utilize
centralized storage. At the current time we might have from 10-15
connections (mappings, sharing files, etc.) at one time. All of these
estimates are very high end.
The database and the mail server are items we will be sharing. We have a few
folders, amounting to about 5-10 GB that need to be shared. We also have
systems that need space to run large reports (1-8 GB).
I want a system that has some fault tolerance and runs less than $5000. Does
anybody have any suggestions?
Please see my previous posts for all our requirements.
Thanks
--
Jason Hindson
Computer Specialist
Tdata
614.885.1169
"David A. Lethe" <da...@santools.com> wrote in message
news:393eba8f...@news.iglobal.net...
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:11:51 GMT, "David Dillard" <ddil...@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"JupiterVast" <jhin...@rrcol.com> wrote in message
> >news:2Qv%4.16501$0T2.3...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> >> What storage system would be best for about 80-120GB of centralized
> >storage
> >> on our network?
> >
> >That depends on your requirements:
> >
> >- What kind of clients do you have?
> >- What kind of servers do you have?
> >- What kind of networking are you using?
> >- What kind of performance do you need?
> >- What kind of money are you willing to spend?
> >- Are you running any kind of application software from your servers?
(DB,
> >web, email, etc.)
> >- How do you expect your storage needs to change in the next 1-2 years?
> >
> >
David Dillard
> I want a system that has some fault tolerance and runs less than $5000.
Does
> anybody have any suggestions?
Prayer.
Seriously, you're "requirements" are out of whack. You want a lot of
storage with great (actually unattainable) performance, but don't want to
pay hardly anything for it.
I'd suggest that you might be reasonably happy with a UDMA RAID controller.
Adaptec has one (see
http://www.adaptec.com/adaptec/press/release000418.html), other companies do
as well.
Disclosure: I work in one of Adaptec's RAID groups. However, I had nothing
to do with the development of Adaptec's UDMA product - as a matter of fact
I've never even seen the product. This is not in any way an endorsement of
that product, just a pointer in a direction that might serve your needs.
--- David
RAIDER
of the drives themselves and the size of your computer/drives enclosure.
I should say, however, that if you are considering using NT RAID with
fault-tolerance (RAID 5) and you are hoping to get any kind of decent
performance it won't happen. RAID 5 done in software will bring your
system to a crawl. You might consider software RAID 1 if you need
redundancy or RAID 0 if you don't. Otherwise, just get a hardware RAID.
Regards,
RAIDER
JupiterVast wrote:
>
> What are the size limitations of a RAID system using NT Server features?
>
> --
>
> Jason Hindson
> Computer Specialist
> Tdata
> 614.885.1169
> "David A. Lethe" <da...@santools.com> wrote in message
> news:393f9b1...@news.iglobal.net...
> > On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:48:05 GMT, "JupiterVast" <jhin...@rrcol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The clients are all Fat-Clients. Most of the software they need is local
> > >
> > >We do not have a central server, we are running a Peer-to-peer network.
> The
> > >systems that are acting as file servers are nothing more than
> workstations
> > >(NT 4.0 Workstation mostly)
> > >
> > >We have an Ethernet network
> > >
> > >We need performance to be fairly comparable to a local drive. But we are
> > >flexible. Just not super slow.
> > >
> > >We are looking for the cheapest route to centralized storage. A RAID box
> for
> > >$5500 was too much that is all I know.
> > >
> > >We run an Access 97 database from one of our computers
> > >
> > >Storage needs will probably increase in the future. I estimate we
> currently
> > >need around 35-50 GB of space that is why I am looking for something in
> the
> > >80 - 120 GB range.
> > >
> > >What are your thoughts? Right now I am leaning towards a software
> configured
> > >RAID system using NT Server as being the cheapest route.
> > >
> > >Jason Hindson
> > >Computer Specialist
> > >Tdata
> > >614.885.1169
> > >
JupiterVast
performance using RAID 5 with NT.
--
Jason Hindson
Computer Specialist
Tdata
614.885.1169
"RAIDER" <RAI...@ultrafast.net.no.sp.am> wrote in message
news:393FD65A...@ultrafast.net.no.sp.am...
David Dillard
> Thank you for your advice RAIDER. I was not aware of the decrease in
> performance using RAID 5 with NT.
It's not just NT. Software RAID 5 (actually software anything but RAID 0 or
1) is going to perform poorly on any platform.
jmetz
box to your system
www.corpsys.com has them as do many other suppliers
This is a stand alone storage device of anywhere from 30 to 400G
that uses a cat5 interface and its own operating system, linux based.
From what I understand as long as you point files storage to it they
can be accessed from anywhere on the net it attached to.
It can also be configured to add a tape backup device within the
larger case to allow additional services in addition to configuring it
to back up data in a power drop condition
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:48:05 GMT, "JupiterVast" <jhin...@rrcol.com>
wrote:
>The clients are all Fat-Clients. Most of the software they need is local
>
>We do not have a central server, we are running a Peer-to-peer network. The
>systems that are acting as file servers are nothing more than workstations
>(NT 4.0 Workstation mostly)
>
>We have an Ethernet network
>
>We need performance to be fairly comparable to a local drive. But we are
>flexible. Just not super slow.
>
>We are looking for the cheapest route to centralized storage. A RAID box for
>$5500 was too much that is all I know.
>
>We run an Access 97 database from one of our computers
>
>Storage needs will probably increase in the future. I estimate we currently
>need around 35-50 GB of space that is why I am looking for something in the
>80 - 120 GB range.
>
>What are your thoughts? Right now I am leaning towards a software configured
>RAID system using NT Server as being the cheapest route.
>
>Jason Hindson
>Computer Specialist
>Tdata
>614.885.1169
>
>
>--
>
>Jason Hindson
>Computer Specialist
>Tdata
>614.885.1169
>"David Dillard" <ddil...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:X7x%4.4001$bj.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> "JupiterVast" <jhin...@rrcol.com> wrote in message
David Dillard
news:394c708b...@news.castle.net...
> Your simplest answer would be to add a preconfigured network storage
> box to your system
> www.corpsys.com has them as do many other suppliers
> This is a stand alone storage device of anywhere from 30 to 400G
> that uses a cat5 interface and its own operating system, linux based.
> From what I understand as long as you point files storage to it they
> can be accessed from anywhere on the net it attached to.
> It can also be configured to add a tape backup device within the
> larger case to allow additional services in addition to configuring it
> to back up data in a power drop condition
NAS certainly has a role to play - as you say it is the simplest answer.
However, NAS is more expensive than direct attach storage and the original
poster made clear that cost was a big issue (he didn't say that explicitly,
but he did say that a certain low cost, IMO, was too high).
Compatibility with various clients, particularly in how security is handled
can also be an issue with NAS. Many NAS boxes use Linux and Samba, and the
Linux/UNIX security model does not mesh well the Windows security model.
For those that don't have security concerns its not a problem, for those
with security concerns... (BTW, I have some experience with this. I used
to work in product development for a company that built a NAS box based on
Linux.)
--- David
Rob Turk
> The clients are all Fat-Clients. Most of the software they need is local
>
> We do not have a central server, we are running a Peer-to-peer network.
The
> systems that are acting as file servers are nothing more than workstations
> (NT 4.0 Workstation mostly)
>
> We have an Ethernet network
>
> We need performance to be fairly comparable to a local drive. But we are
> flexible. Just not super slow.
>
> We are looking for the cheapest route to centralized storage. A RAID box
for
> $5500 was too much that is all I know.
Mr. Hindson,
You need to talk to the person who decided that $5500 was too much. Your
requirements suggest that your data is mission critical. Your data *is* your
business. Have this person do a quick check on what the cost of loosing this
data would be. I bet that an hour of downtime is totally unacceptable to
this person, at least if your requirements are real. Have this person
including the loss of productivity of your employees. Then have him/her
repeat that $5500 is too much...
My personal suggestion would be to go further than that. With your current
setup (Workstations acting as servers, no central system management) you set
yourself up for huge cost in managing these systems. Especially if you are
going to add another 20-odd systems. The person in charge of your IT
department clearly has no idea what he/she is doing. Go back to the drawing
board, consolidate a lot of your storage space and 'servers', and invest in
a proper, manageable infrastructure.
Let me guess, all your users also know the administrator password on all
boxes, right??
This is not meant as a flame, but you are seriously setting yourself up for
failure.
Rob
jmetz
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:59:44 GMT, "David Dillard" <ddil...@usa.net>
wrote:
>"jmetz" <jm...@castle.net> wrote in message
Having spent the better part of this past week at PC Expo2000 I was
able to review a number of different NAS systems Quantium has a very
affordable NAS box that sets up within 5 min cost started at under
$500 to about $2900
There was offered a IDE Raid card PCI bus that was able to add 8 UDMA
/66/100 drives in configuration to RAID 10 and mirror
Can't remember the manufacturer at this hour but I will post the name
in another post, it was able to sustain a 97MB per second transfer
rate.
There were a number of raid devices NAS devices as well as the
standard SCSI and fiber Raid solutions the difference was that cost
for scsi and fiber was about 12X greater than the solution I had
suggested.
David Dillard
> Having spent the better part of this past week at PC Expo2000 I was
> able to review a number of different NAS systems Quantium has a very
> affordable NAS box that sets up within 5 min cost started at under
> $500 to about $2900
That would be the old Meridian Data Snap Server line I believe.
> There was offered a IDE Raid card PCI bus that was able to add 8 UDMA
> /66/100 drives in configuration to RAID 10 and mirror
> Can't remember the manufacturer at this hour but I will post the name
> in another post, it was able to sustain a 97MB per second transfer
> rate.
Hmmm... Interesting. Was that 97MB a real sustained rate or a theoretical
sustained rate? Its hard to get PCI to perform that well in the real world
(despite the fact that PCI has a theoretical bandwith of 132MB/sec).
> There were a number of raid devices NAS devices as well as the
> standard SCSI and fiber Raid solutions the difference was that cost
> for scsi and fiber was about 12X greater than the solution I had
> suggested.
I remember seeing some market research a couple of years ago which said that
NAS RAID would not be a big seller. The real market was for NAS JBOD. I
wonder how many units these companies are actually selling.
--- David