Hi,
Just wanted to let folks know the results of our NAS search. The two
finalists for us were NetApp and EMC because they were the only ones
that supported CIFS 2.0 at an acceptable price point for 30TB (Isilon is
not cost effective until you are around 100TB). Both systems would have
worked for us, but, even though the EMC is much more complex and the
NetApp interface is nicer, we ended up choosing the EMC VNX because:
1. It has separate ACL lists for Windows and Unix which made it easier
to deal with shares that are shared out via CIFs and NFS and not have
ACLs trash each other. This was a continual problem with the NetApp.
2. We have over 150K links on our current system and the EMC does not
require us to maintain a separate text file for links that span across
head nodes or volumes.
3. The EMC has the potential to make migration much easier by acting as
a front end to our current system. If this works, I can just point
everyone to the EMC and then move the data over to the EMC as I have
time instead of trying to do it all at once or have people trying to
remember which system their data is on.
4. NetApp (at least as configured) was designed to run in active-active
mode which breaks our current model of using one name to access all file
services (e.g. file.nsd.org) as the data would be split between 2 nodes
(e.g. file1 and file2).
5. The EMC had fewer problems fitting into our environment than the
NetApp did during the evaluation.
cheers,
ski
--
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it
connected to the entire universe" John Muir
Chris "Ski" Kacoroski, [email protected], 206-501-9803
or ski98033 on most IM services
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
