> > Hello Nick, > > the question is, what are you doing with it and why do you think you > need a fibre channel SAN. > Our goal indeed is to get rid of the SAN infrastructure as it is > delicately to all kinds of failure with nearly zero fault tolerance. > An example, you have an hicup or a power failure in your network. SAN is > dead from nowon and must be reinitialized on the server. Simple NFS > comes back up without any fuzz. > Another, you boot your storage systems due to an os update or something > like that. Your SAN will be dead. NFS will just go on as if nothing > happened. > We use netapp storage systems which are NAS and SAN capable. > Another point is, that if you have a SAN lun, there is either no way to > increase or decrease size on the fly, on cifs or nfs you can resize your > share on the go. > > So if you do not have a _really_ good reason to use a fribre channel > SAN, don't! > > Regards, > Norman > > Hello Norman,
Thank you so much for your response. That is a very interesting! We currently use an NFS to house home directories etc.., and I love how it just bloody works!!! We do however need block level sharing. The idea is the typical host with multiple VM with virtual HDDs residing on a SAN..... We figured fibre would give us better performance (for the mean time!!!). It was my understanding that SAN whether implemented using iSCSI or Fibre was essentially susceptible to the same type of faults that lead to whatever failures? The only difference being of course, on is on fibre, and the other using ethernet. Given the price of fibre right now, it's quite cheap and we though double the throughput, why not? We could have the VMs taking storage from DAS, and mount to an external NFS for home/ etc... Not sure how it would perform in terms of IO rates, and also, the idea of block level allocation just seems so much cleaner no? PS I am new to SAN, please excuse me. Kind Regards, Nick
