Windows Storage Area Network Like Solution

[SammyBoy]

This is a somewhat complex problem that I have had and hopefully someone here can help me solve.

I am a network administrator for a medium sized company here, and we have about 60 computers each with 40GB HDD's in them. On each machine only about 5GB of space is actually used, but everyone at the company is hoping for some centralized storage solution. What I have been thinking is that if there was a way to somehow use the extra 35GB of space on each of the 60 machines, and "RAID" it into a big hdd on a central server and have them mount that as a Z: drive or something, then they could store all their stuff there.

I've looked into DFS for windows but that doesnt really raid all of the space into 1 drive-like drive, it just puts a bunch of shares inside of other shares. I need something that works almost exactly like a RAID array just over the network.

Does anyone know any tools or programs that could do this? If the centralized server that was incharge of raiding all of the other network drives into 1 drive needed to be Linux that would not be a problem, but the other machines do need to remain Windows.

Any help on this would be great, time is kinda an issue too so hopefully within the next few days someone here will have a solution.

Thanks a ton for the help.

 

[capybara]

explanation of DFS: from m$ knowledge base
"Overview of DFS
In most environments, shared resources reside on multiple servers in various shared folders. To access a resource, a user or program must either map a drive to the server or specify the Universal Naming Convention (UNC) path of the shared resource. For example:
\\ServerName\ShareName
or
\\ServerName\ShareName\Path\FileName

DFS makes it possible for a share point on one server to host the shares that reside on other servers. It transparently links file servers and shared folders, and then maps them to a single hierarchy so they can be accessed from one location. This occurs although the data is actually distributed in different locations. Users no longer have to go to multiple locations on the network to find the information that they need. Users only have to connect to:
\\DfsServer\Dfsroot
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the whole point of dfs is supposed to be to get rid of sharenames.

 

[yruffostsif]

That sounds good in theory, but would be a nightmare in reality. Get your company to pony up for either some attached storage or a NAS product. A real SAN might be out of your price range.

the whole point of dfs is supposed to be to get rid of sharenames

The point of dfs is to allow: (1) replication (2) allow for share grouping (3) aid in load balancing (4) aid MS clusters (without DFS, it suxs)

 

[Mday]

it may be possible, but anything of that sort will kill your network in terms of bandwidth usage. the cpu usage on each individual computer would also increase greatly, maybe to the point of uselessness.

 

[glugglug]

Biggest flaw with this idea:

In order to be able to use the RAIDed drive at any given point in time, ALL the computers making up stripes of the array must be operating. What are the odds of 60 Windows boxes working simultaneously?

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: glugglug
Biggest flaw with this idea: In order to be able to use the RAIDed drive at any given point in time, ALL the computers making up stripes of the array must be operating. What are the odds of 60 Windows boxes working simultaneously?

If it's 2000 or higher, very high.

 

[yruffostsif]

lol, not if the user shuts it off, or the power goes out.

 

[f95toli]

I don' really see the point 35*60=2100 GB, that is not very much for a storage solution and if you consider the cost and potential problems of implementing the solution you suggest I don't think it is worth it.

 

[xenos500]

Originally posted by: f95toli
I don' really see the point 35*60=2100 GB, that is not very much for a storage solution and if you consider the cost and potential problems of implementing the solution you suggest I don't think it is worth it.

2100GB is not very much for a storage solution? For a company with 60 workstations using ~300GB COMBINED localy...I think a first network storage system with 2100GB would be overkill and a waste of money. I agree that there is not a way to use the extra space on the workstations and even if there was, it would suck. I think it would be fairliy ecconomical to get a file server.... I would think 3 72GB drives on RAID-5 (144GB) would be a good place to start. All that would be needed to upgrade is adding another drive and expanding the array.

 

[f95toli]

Of course I did not mean a 2100 GB HD solution but unless you re running a huge database you hardly need that. A few hundred GB SCSI drive combined with for example a LTO drive for long-terme storage/backup might be a cheaper solution.
But 2100 Gb is not THAT much, after all you can get a 1 TB NAS for around $15,000.