There is a difference between iSCSI SAN's and NAS devices. With iSCSI, you should have two dedicated NIC's or HBA's in your servers and two switches for proper failover. A NAS can be connected to your existing network, and should work great for your Exchange archiving, since high performance wouldn't be needed as it would with an Exchange DB or vmware storage.
I don't want to start a debate on it, but since NAS devices are optimized for file access, and vmware basically works by accessing virtual machines stored as files, NAS's can actually perform very well compared to SAN's in an ESX environment. Either way, you should be fine as long as you stick with SAS/SCSI disks. Matt -----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> ~
