I tried to read through most of the thread before answering. IRT Deji's comments regarding SAN-based, clustered Exchange: We run a 6Tb SAN, fiber-attached to several UNIX and Win2K Clusters (Veritas Clustering) The Exchange drives (databases) sit on the SAN and are presented to the three Exchange servers, appearing to them as ordinary internal hard drives. The servers are too dumb to know difference. Disk size can be expanded on the fly with Enterprise Volume Manager. Need more space? Add another 100 Gb. With an any-to-any clustering scenario, if an E2K server fails, the data is gracefully removed and presented to the failover cluster in a matter of minutes (maybe 2mins tops).
BUT....this SAN was mighty pricey and required a pretty steep learning curve for those of us who had never driven one before. We also have a 400Gb+ NAS (HP) that serves up basically static content (Blackboard Learning System) and with Gb NICs it runs pretty sweet, especially connected to a Gb Cisco switch on a fiber backbone. This is a small form factor (5 1/2") desktop device that stores 1Tb using Firewire or USB 2.0 http://www.ecost.com/ecost/shop/detail.asp?DPNo=356797 You HAVE to see the cost.....unbelievable. AL -----Original Message----- From: Noah Eiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: NAS and WSS You guys are too funny. If the choice were between Leno and reading some of the posts on this list, I think I would take this list. Come to think of it, if the choice were between getting bamboo shoved under my nails and watching Leno, I might just choose the former. Well, needless to say, I got lots of laughs out of this thread. But basically, I regret a bit including the bit about Exchange. Though the discussion led me to wonder, would you put the database on the NAS or the logs? Or both? Is it the disk subsystem on a NAS that causes the concern or the connectivity? I suppose finally, after dealing with all the foo, does NAS really lower your true cost per gigabyte? Oh, just so I don't lose site of the original question, you all seem to be in consensus that if budget allows go DAS and go SCSI. NAS is ok for file sharing, particularly with directories that are infrequently accessed or just read from. (I may be summarizing some Google findings here as well). Do I have that basically right? nme List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
