You already support virtualization, so other than licensing, a server is *automatic*
I'd get the SAN/NAS storage, based on what you've said so far. *ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker>* **Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for the SMB market…*** On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:45 AM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > That was the basis of the original question, NAS or Server > > NAS must haves, non-negotiable; > > Redundant Power > 2 NICS and or a slot to put a spare NIC > AD Support > RAID > X number of supported connections > MINIMUM 4 bays, prefer 8 > > - > > Now in retrospect your typical server already has everything mentioned > above > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > > > ------------------------------ > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:25:22 -0400 > > > For something that's just doing file storage I'd probably lean towards a > NAS device. If you want the flexibility to add additional features (DNS, > DHCP, DC,, print server, etc.....) I'd go with a dedicated server. Also > what features do you need in a NAS? Nic teaming, iSCSI support, dual power > supplies, RAID levels? All of that will determine you options. On the low > end you could get something like this : > > > http://www.amazon.com/Synology-DiskStation-Diskless-Attached-DS1513/dp/B00CM9K7E6/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1371736486&sr=1-1&keywords=Synology+DiskStation+DS1513%2B > > > *Christopher Bodnar* > Enterprise Architect I, Corporate Office of Technology:Enterprise > Architecture and Engineering Services Tel 610-807-6459 > 3900 Burgess Place, Bethlehem, PA 18017 > [email protected] > > > * > The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America* > * > **www.guardianlife.com* <http://www.guardianlife.com/> > > > > > > > From: J- P <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: 06/19/2013 08:47 PM > Subject: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server > Sent by: [email protected] > ------------------------------ > > > > Company background, > > 30 yrs old, started with 2 guys, went to to computers in the late 90's had > about 20 users, 1 W2k server and a 120 gb SNAP- > > Fast forward , 2008, 30 users, sql 2005 DB (consultant at the time ) > installs a new 1U 2003 80gb raid server for sql DB , and another 1U server > with a mirrored 750gb drive , serving as DC/File/Print/DNS Server. > > Fast Forward 2013 - single site , single domain > > 1. ESXi hosting a VM 2008 Citrix TS, and a VM 2003 DC (no storage really > available) > 1. Windows 2012 Hyper-V host, SAS mirror for host OS, raid 10 2TB for > guest OS', currently one guest, 2012 with Exchange 2013. > > Now there are 60 users, (still using original 2003 for File Print and DNS) > and storage demands, as we all know are increasing exponentially, so I get > the "we need more storage " so this begs the question, new server 2u (R710 > maybe) , or a NAS 8 or 12 bays maybe- > > As an aside, majority of the users use basic office files, but there are > about a dozen that deal with CAD Audio and Video > I want this solution to be good for 3-5 years > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > ----------------------------------------- This message, and any > attachments to it, may contain information that is privileged, > confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the > reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that > any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, > please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete the > message and any attachments. Thank you. >
<<ATT00001>>
