Enterprise NAS question

[Mark R]

I've got an application at work which runs on its own dedicated server with dedicated storage (i.e. not using the main enterprise file server). Due to age, it's time for the app to be migrated to new hardware.

The app server has about 10-20 concurrent users, and the main use is a data archive. Approx 3 GB per day is written, with about 8-10 GB per day read, mainly from the last 2-3 days. Typical file sizes are about 0.1-1 MB, with about 50,000 file reads per day, and about 10,000 file writes per day and several thousand database updates. We'll be migrating about 20 TB, and will need a total of about 30 TB allowing for growth over the asset life. Most accesses will be on-site over gigE, but about 30% will be by home-workers over VPN over residential ADSL.

The software vendor recommended a clariion CX4 for the old system which was duly installed and has been fine, if rather expensive, but has been a solid workhorse, probably overkill for the job.

The project manager from the software vendor has suggested that instead of using a SAS SAN, we go for a SATA NAS solution. They have suggested an Isolon X410. This sounded like a good idea until my boss got the quote for the storage solution through and nearly had a heart attack.

The boss is quite keen to put some pressure on the vendor to suggest a slightly less impressive storage solution. Does anyone think that there are realistic savings to be made? Or is this just what entry level enterprise storage costs these days? (Bear in mind the proviso, that it's more than my job's worth to suggest something like a drobo which probably wouldn't be up to the job).

 

[dave_the_nerd]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you have an application server, and it's storage backend is provided by a dedicated SAN, and you're looking to replace the SAN? Enterprise storage is expensive as hell, but most of the real costs are in the support contracts and warranties, not the hardware itself. So if your team doesn't want to take ultimate ownership of servicing the stuff, this is going to be expensive.

But I would stick with block storage, not migrate to file. (SAN = block, NAS = file.) For most of the applications I'm familiar with, performance will be better over block. (NAS protocols like NFS or CIFS are equal at best, and way worse at worst.) Fortunately for you, what matters isn't really what it says on the box - what matters is the protocol that the server uses to talk to the storage system. Many storage appliances that are sold as NAS devices will actually do a fine job as a SAN, usually by offering iSCSI support. (Which is cheap to implement because it uses the same NICs, but performs reasonably well as a block storage transport layer.) So you don't need to go crazy expensive, either.

At the bargain-basement, no support-contract level, Synology makes some enterprise NAS appliances that might be worth a look, and I'm pretty sure they have iSCSI support. A couple grand for the box, then you fill it with drives. Spring for enterprise grade drives like the WD Re, though. Not kidding. And make sure you have a spare or two in a closet. (Of course, you've now spent $7k or so on storage and have no support contract. Unless you get to pocket the difference yourself, I'd say it's not worth it. You will too, when you get a drive failure alert at 3AM on a weekend.)

If you're willing to spend the $15-$25k (or more) to get something with a support contract and stuff, you'll want to shop around with a few VARs, probably. Dell/EMC (The Clarion and Isilon are EMC products, so...) also does direct sales.

I use the old Compellent (old as in the company doesn't exist since it got eaten by Dell/EMC, the hardware was actually fairly new) gear and it works pretty well. An SCv2000 might not be a bad idea.

Do you have any performance stats from the existing SAN? (Average IOPS, stuff like that.)

Given how much of your data is stale and infrequently accessed, getting a storage system that supports dedup and compression is probably a very good idea. That's a fairly common feature, but not everybody has it yet. So something to check for anyways.

 

[XavierMace]

It would help knowing what kind of dollar amount you were quoted and what you were expecting/hoping for.

 

[mxnerd]

If there are only 10-20 users and approx 3 GB per day is written, with about 8-10 GB per day read, and the files are small, I wonder why the software vendor is asking you to upgrade to a system that's so expensive? (Isilon X410, over $320,000?) To me, the data being read/written daily does not warrant the need and the price tag.

Do you know whether the app server only runs on EMC equipment? If the app server can be move to a Synology solution like what dave_the_nerd suggested, it will be a tremendous saving. Synology top models supports link aggregation up to 4x 1Gbps or optional 10GbE Network Interface Card.

SAN storage is not necessarily better than SATA/SAS storage. But with a price this steep, just stay with what you have, use Clarion CX4 SAS SAN or look for other options.

===

I probably misunderstood OP. The app server probably stay on the same machine, only the storage server needs to be upgraded?

 

[Mark R]

Thanks for the help. This rather confirms what I suspected, that the vendor is recommending an excessive storage solution. I suspect some of it is that for support reasons they don't want to be fielding support calls for poor system performance, when it's not their product. As far as users of this software product go, we are quite small - there are others with 10-20x the requirements (both in terms of data and number of simultaneous users), so I wonder if the vendor didn't think their recommendation through and someone non-technical just gave their generic recommendation.

As far as cost went, I haven't seen the exact quote, but it was way over $200k once installation/config services and 5 year warranty/on-site support were added.

We're keen to replace the clariion, as support has been discontinued, and we don't really want to continue operating key infrastructure without a support contract, especially where sourcing parts may be difficult. For a similar reason, we'll be replacing the application server, and everyone is happy with a Dell poweredge R430 with appropriate options.

EMC seems to be the software provider's preferred storage platform, and I've found the VNXe3200, which looks like it would be a drop in replacement for the clariion for a fraction of the cost. With a bit of luck, we'll be able to get a satisfactory solution.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

VNXe3200? That looks reasonable. :up:

 

[XavierMace]

If you're doing 5 year support, keep in mind, that's likely to be half of the quote $ wise.

 

[KentState]

Just curious, but what is the overall footprint of the data being stored? The read/write numbers are trivial, to the point where I haven't seen something that small in a long time. Even my home NAS handles more I/O than that, albeit less concurrent users.

Also, is there a regulatory requirement to house this data on your own equipment? With remote users, I'd be tempted to look at a cloud solution and have it as an operating expense vs capital.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Just curious, but what is the overall footprint of the data being stored? The read/write numbers are trivial, to the point where I haven't seen something that small in a long time. Even my home NAS handles more I/O than that, albeit less concurrent users.

Also, is there a regulatory requirement to house this data on your own equipment? With remote users, I'd be tempted to look at a cloud solution and have it as an operating expense vs capital.

He said in OP; 20-30TB.

 

[Mark R]

Just curious, but what is the overall footprint of the data being stored? The read/write numbers are trivial, to the point where I haven't seen something that small in a long time. Even my home NAS handles more I/O than that, albeit less concurrent users.

Also, is there a regulatory requirement to house this data on your own equipment? With remote users, I'd be tempted to look at a cloud solution and have it as an operating expense vs capital.

It's 20-30 TB, mainly static data.

It's not strictly necessary that the data is stored on our own equipment, although it's preferable that the data is held on-site due to its sensitivity and for availability reasons; it's very inconvenient not to have immediate access. At present, we actually have a completely replicated system - two identical servers and SANs, placed at opposite ends of the building, with application level syncing between the two servers in near-real time. In the event that the main server goes down (e.g. for software upgrade), then users can be instructed to use the backup server, and there is scope for data recovery from the backup server in the event of total loss of the main server/SAN installation. We've had problems with reliability of off-site data links, so are keen to have the primary server housed locally.

One of the discussions we've been having in addition to the storage solution is whether the backup server could be placed off-site, e.g. co-lo or cloud (although I suspect for support reasons, the system vendor may not like this idea), linking into the local LAN via a VPN tunnel. We'll be having some discussions with the vendor's technical architect soon, and we'll be exploring some of these issues along with the storage.