Tim, I would argue that the problem was not the amount of storage that was obtained, so much as it was determining how additional storage would be added.
At my present employer, we needed to get some storage back in 2007. They wanted to keep the initial costs low, so I obtained a limited feature-set appliance with 6TB usable space for under $10K. I advised them to go with a more expandable unit, but no one wanted to make the investment at that point. We then needed more storage (for something else) and I obtained another unit with the same caveat, but this time with 8TB usable space. We paid just over $10K for that one. Lastly, we obtained another non-expandable unit with 12TB for a different function, and this came in around $20K, especially because we were using larger density drives that had just been released. Finally, in mid 2008, I convinced them to go with redundancy and expandibility, and we purchased a robust 20TB solution (6TB SAS storage; 14TB SATA storage) with dual-redundant controllers, NAS support, and really cool software for supporting snapshots and replication. It can grow to over 200TB if needed, just by adding drive trays. We would ultimately have paid less for the total if we purchased the big SAN with 40TB of storage in the first place, but I think they understand that now. If you know what it takes to expand the storage (and we did in each case), then you can take more gambles on how much growth to account for. Even if you misjudge and end up with a device that can't grow with you, If you can repurpose the old appliance, you will have lost very little, as the new costs are much better for storage across the board. *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> *Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership* On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tim Vander Kooi <[email protected]>wrote: > I have to say from personal experience that if you are going to err, do it > on the side of too much storage up front. I purchased a SAN not too long ago > thinking it would last for years, only to find it filled to capacity in > under 2 years. At this point, we also found out that their solution to > adding more space was to dump the original and buy a “bigger better” system > to replace it. I did in fact have to buy a new system to replace the old > SAN, but this time went with EqualLogic which costs a little more up front, > but gives me the peace of mind that I can just add more disk to it for years > and years to come. I am willing, and able, to pay for that peace of mind as > I find it to be worth more than the actual hardware over time. > > Tim > > > > *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:01 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: SAN solutions > > > > The problem being solved is *not *merely the replication of 150GB of data. > > The problem, as I understand it, it to provide a stand-alone, but robust > and redundant storage solution that can support current and future growth, > where current needs are ~150GB and future needs are estimated at 3-5TB. > The replication will be across the WAN. > > There are a number of ways to achieve this goal. One of the things we've > been recommending is to not overstate the storage needs of the next few > years. If growth is unpredictable, then spend more for a highly expandable > chassis now. If growth is more modest (and I believe that it will be, > given the current needs), then get an appliance with some growth ability, > but at a better price point. When you need to get something else, the > technology and pricing will be much better anyway. > > Some people will roll their own solution, and some will obtain the largest > solution with expandability that money can by today. And there are viable > options in between. > > > *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> > > *Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership* > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Mike Gill <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I’m very small time, but I like to think that after a little reading and > pondering I can at least have a basic understanding around enterprise > concepts, and why some things cost more. Sometimes, a lot more. But here I > cannot. Can someone please enlighten me as to why there is a consideration > to spend up to *forty thousand dollars* on replicating 150GB of data to > two locations? This seems like such a completely small amount of data for > such a price, even with having space for growth. > > > > -- > Mike Gill > > > > *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > > *Subject:* RE: SAN solutions > > > > Well, I’m looking to off-load our storage to a dedicated storage appliance > from our mirrored Dell servers. Currently we are using about 150 Gigs of > drive space on the servers (again…mirrored for D/R purposes.) > > > > I am looking at using iSCSI to connect the servers to the storage appliance > to share the files out as if they were on the local drive. My estimated > budget for this is about $30-40K for a pair of mirrored storage appliances. > I would like to have one of the devices at a remote location for D/R > purposes. Pretty much everyone has said that they think that can be done, > even over a 5 Mbit VPN. > > > > [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools] > > > > *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:11 PM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > > *Subject:* Re: SAN solutions > > > > What is the budget you working with (or you believe you'll be constrained > to?) > > That might help your selection process. > > You basically need to indicate the desired functionality, and the extent of > your budget. If they are in sync, then that will be better. If not, then > a recalibration in one direction or another will be necessary, and then the > solutions will come from that. > > *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> > > > *Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership* > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:04 PM, John Aldrich < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah… but I have a feeling that the Compellent solution may be lower cost. > J I got an MSRP on an Equallogic system… $42K for a 5 Tb useable system… > No way I’m going to be able to afford two of those to do D/R. L > > > > [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools] > > > > *From:* Brian Desmond [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:53 PM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > > *Subject:* RE: SAN solutions > > > > *Lefthand (Bought by HP) and Equalogic (bought by Dell) play in this space > as well. * > > * * > > *Thanks,* > > *Brian Desmond* > > *[email protected]* > > * * > > *c - 312.731.3132* > > * * > > *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:28 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* SAN solutions > > > > Anyone know anything about a SAN manufacturer called Compellent? I just had > a webinar with them and they seem like they’re pretty good. They have > separate drive chassis and controllers, with the controller being > essentially a server class machine. Anyway, just thought I’d ask in here if > anyone had any experience with them. > > > > [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools] > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09 > 07:38:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09 > 07:38:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
