You are correct on the TB. Fair enough on the fugly, but I am looking forward to replacing servers as they come off lease and not having to restore from tapes and just "plugging" servers into the SAN fabric and our backup have been much improved as I was able to get a Scalar tape library in place of the old autoloaders and single drives we had in place as part of the SAN project.
I will take fugly over really fugly which is where we were headed with all the internal storage on our servers. -----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:37 PM To: NT 2000 Discussions Subject: RE: Basic SAN question I think you mean 2TB, not GB, right? If its 2 GB, I'm looking at USB drives that will do that! ;) I'm really interested to see what happens say 5 years from now, after people have doubled their SAN size - and have a patchwork of storage over a patchwork of disks. Fugly comes to mind. ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:30 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > 2 GB's. We are using a little over half now and just brought > it on-line in > March. We should have to add capacity by mid next year. > > Will not argue the raw cost per MB is higher. Although the > incremental cost > of adding more drives is generally not all that bad. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:17 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > That's interesting. Almost everyone else I know that's run > the numbers has > shown a considerably higher cost per mb for SAN over DAS, and > have had to > use the "soft" cost justifications to get them back in line. > > Granted, you were buying 5-20 times the required storage per > machine, we > usually shoot for 2-3 times. > > For grins, what's the total capacity of your SAN, and what's > the current > utilization at? > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:00 PM > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > Disagree. We are moving all of our servers to the SAN, including > > booting the OS from the SAN. We were able to show a break even > > scenario in hard > > costs, and then the "soft cost" were able to push things > over the top. > > > > Largely because of our purchasing habits, I admit. We would buy > > servers with 100 to 400 GB's of drive space because they (developers > > and DBA's, not > > me!) might need it within the three year lease cycle. Then > > when it came off > > lease they may have used 15 or 20 GB's. Also, booting from > > SAN I lose the > > array card along with all the hard drives. > > > > Again just one man's opinion. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:15 AM > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > IMO, the *right* answer is to not buy a SAN for generalized storage. > > At the current price-per-mb rates of SAN solutions vs. Direct > > Attached Storage(DAS), I can waste a LOT of locally attached storage > > before I break > > even moving to a SAN. > > > > Don't get me wrong - SAN's have their place. I just don't > think most > > companies need them. And don't even get me started on NAS boxes, > > either. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:27 AM > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the warning. > > > > > > I do plan on minimizing the number of LUNs, but my boss asked the > > > question and I wanted to be sure to have the /right/ > answer instead > > > of the /right-now/ answer. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:51 AM > > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > > > Most vendors will allow you to slice and dice a SAN > array into as > > > > many LUNs of whatever size you want. Its absolutely the wrong > > > > thing to do, but it certainly can be done. > > > > > > > > Any time a phisical platter is partitioned, you're > going to take a > > > > performance hit - simply put, the heads can't be in two > places at > > > > once, so if two systems are trying to access data which is > > > > physically on the same platter, but logically on > different LUNs, > > > > there is head contention, and one of the two must wait for the > > > > other to finish "using" the heads, and then pay the additional > > > > price of a head seek across the platter to its assigned set of > > > > cylinders. > > > > > > > > In the case of your single 500GB RAID5 set in your SAN > being split > > > > into 300/100/50/50, you have in reality created 4 partitions on > > > > each spindle, with 60%/20%/10%/10% split on each > spindle. With a > > > > large number of platters, and larger stripe sizes, its > > > > theoretically possible to reduce the chances of > contention within > > > > the SAN, but realistically speaking, chances are there > is going to > > > > be some contention, and therefore some performance hits > associated > > > > with managing your disks this way. > > > > > > > > Its one of the lies^H^H^H^H omissions commonly done in > the sales > > > > pitches of the big storage vendors. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Chris Levis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:07 PM > > > > > To: NT 2000 Discussions > > > > > Subject: Basic SAN question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have a RAID-5 array of (let's say) 500GB, can > you create > > > > > LUNs of an arbitrary size to be presented to the > > servers? E.g, a > > > > > 300GB, a 100GB, and > > > > > two 50GB? Or is there a convention that all LUNs have to be > > > > > a uniform > > > > > size? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________ > > > > > Chris Levis > > > > > Applied Geographics, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > > ------ > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > > are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom > > they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the > > person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended > > recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error > > and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of > > this e-mail is strictly prohibited. > > > > > > ------ > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > ------ You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
