Understand that difference, but he stated a preference, and if he didn't simply misspeak (mistype?), I want to know the basis for the preference.
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Martin Blackstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Keep it basic. > SAN - Block level access. Databases, Exchange, VMware, LUN. > NAS - File level access. Network sharing, CIFS. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:32 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: SAN vs. NAS, and all that - was: Re: Email Archiving > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Michael B. Smith > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> However, given that (as always) you size your arrays properly, I really > like >> iscsi NAS. > > What benefit do you get from an iSCSI NAS, vs. an iSCSI SAN? > > I ask because we're looking at iSCSI SANs right now for our VMWare > infrastructure, and also for Exchange (2k3) archiving > > We're taking a close look at the Datacore software offering, and > Lefthand, though the Datacore looks better on long-term costs. > > Is there anyone here who can speak to Datacore offerings - I know > several of you are partisans of Lefthand? > > Kurt > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ > > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
