Replacing 14 disk Server based RAID array with Infrant NAS. Thoughts?

[Evadman]

I want to move to a NAS box instead of my current server based file server. Originaly there was a lot more I wnated to do with this box than be a file server, but I just plain don't have time. I want something that is almost plug and play, with minimal administration. Speed is not a huge concern, though it is one. Uptime and reliability is the main concern for me.

I want to move one of my shares from one of the current server systems I have set up which is a 14 disk RAID 5 and RAID 1 setup with 2.5 TB of space. (12 250 GB SATA drives across 2 highpoint 2220 and 1820A SATA 8 port controlers spanned together on an windows 2003 server box with the OS on 2 RAID 1'd 160 GB SATA drives) to a NAS box. For right now, I want at least 1.5 TB of space with data redundancy (RAID 5 preferably).

My research tells me that the Infrant ReadyNAS NV RNV1 would be a good choice as the box is $500 with another $600 or so for 4 500 GB Seagate drives. The NAS also suports loading from USB drives into the NAS (I doubt I would use that) but it does have a USB print server; which I would use as this server also acts as a print server for a USB laser printer.

Also, there seems to be a good following of the Infrant brand, and Infrant has their own X-RAID setup that supports online expansion which my current system supports. (OCE is when you can add a drive to expand the capacity without taking the system down to rebuild the array. Since a rebuild can take days, it is worth it. IIRC the last time I added a drive to my 2220 it took about a week to add the drive.

Total, that means a 1.5 TB NAS for about $1200. What do you guys think?

 

[kevnich2]

Well, honestly if you don't have any problems with your current setup (Power would be my main concern) why replace it? That sounds like an awesome file system (your server based one), personally. Just note that you will lose ALOT of functionality. I'm currently battling this same battle in my mind right now. I don't know whether I want to stick with my current NAS or build a new server based NAS for more functionality. By functionality I'm meaning there is ALOT of stuff you can do with just the file serving in a server based. In windows you can lock down individual folders/files in shares. You can specify security in both the share itself and then lock users out of individual folders in that share. In most NAS units today, you can't do that. You can specify shares and who has access to what shares but then those users will have access to everything in that share without being able to lock down individual shares. My current NAS is a snap server 2000 which does actually allow me to lock down individual folders but the speed is the issue now. This is an older NAS system and I'm only getting about ~40mbytes/second transfer speed. Server systems just give ALOT more control over what you can do. Just my .02 worth.

 

[RebateMonger]

I have NOT used the Infrant NAS, but the reviews seem better than most NAS systems. The ability to add more storage at will is a great feature. Replacing the 12-drive RAID5 array with a 3- or 4- drive array would certainly improve reliability and heat generation.

If it was MY system, I'd continue to use the Windows Server and add an external 4-drive SATA housing, using three or four of the new 1TB drives coming out this quarter. You could have 2TB of mirrored (RAID1, RAID01, RAID10) array (maximum reliability and recoverability) or a 3TB RAID5 array. The cost would be comparable and data transfer rate would be quite a bit faster. But you said you weren't concerned about transfer rate.

But the Infrant NAS certainly doesn't seem like a bad choice if you are intent on losing the Windows Server.

I'm curious how you handle backups. I always ask this question of those with large arrays, since there aren't any simple solutions and I'm always looking for ideas.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I'm curious how you handle backups. I always ask this question of those with large arrays, since there aren't any simple solutions and I'm always looking for ideas.

Tape drive run approximately 'whenever I feel like it'

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I'm curious how you handle backups. I always ask this question of those with large arrays, since there aren't any simple solutions and I'm always looking for ideas.

Tape drive run approximately 'whenever I feel like it'

What technology and how many tapes do you use?

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: InlineFive
What technology and how many tapes do you use?

dell 124T. It's not mine, I just borrow it every once and a while to run a backup. I have 6 400gb lto3 native tapes.

 

[Evadman]

Bought it. Had it about a month. Used 4 750 GB Seagate drives. works very well, and acts as a print server with ease. Only issue is transfer speed is a lot less than I thought. It maxes out a 100mbit connection, but that is about the limit. On gigabit I show about 12% usage, where my old file server would be at 70% or higher. At that point the disk and bus ran out of throughput. In the Infrant NAS it seems to be CPU bound, as 4 disks at about 200 MB/sec should be at about 600MB/Sec to be 'perfect' which would put a gigabit connection at about 60% usage instead of the 12% I show now. I created it with 2 disks, added 1, then antoher one, which took about 24 hours to rebuild the array both times. Much faster than my old raid cards.

I am parting out my old server in FS/FT to get some of my money back

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Evadman
Only issue is transfer speed is a lot less than I thought. It maxes out a 100mbit connection, but that is about the limit. On gigabit I show about 12% usage, where my old file server would be at 70% or higher.

Welcome to fakegigabit consumer NAS.

Originally posted by: Evadman
4 disks at about 200 MB/sec should be at about 600MB/Sec to be 'perfect' which would put a gigabit connection at about 60% usage instead of the 12% I show now.

1 B = 1 byte = 8 bits = 8 b

A 7200.10 can do around 40-80 MB/s (min-max), average around 60 MB/s. Two of these at average, and three at minimum are enough to saturate gigabit in theory. Of course, reality is more complicated with inefficiencies and overhead, which is why you'll see closer to 60 MB/s ( 480 Mb/s) in practice than 125 MB/s (1000 Mb/s) with a setup as the one you're selling.