|
We're looking at the possibility of getting a SAN for our office of ~25 users. We wouldn't need more than 2TB of space, or anything particularly fast, but we'd like one for all the cool features that come with a SAN. The problem seems to be price, as we're only looking to spend 10-12k. Is getting something to meet our modest needs under 12k completely unrealistic? What brands should we be looking at? I've gotten a quote for 15k for a NetApp 2020, but we'd really like to spend less than that so it doesn't cut into our budget for new servers.
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
H110Hawk posted:Do you know what % that is off list price? Push back on the price until they say no. Tell them your budget is $10k, then when/if they come back with a $12k quote, bite. Remember you have to renew that support contract annually or purchase a third party one. This is good advice. Something I noticed was that this particular vendor quoted 11k for the actual hardware and 3600 dollars for what appears to be "racking and stacking" the server in our noc. Needless to say, that's outrageous, but this is my first time buying a piece of hardware in this way. Is that to be expected with all vendors, or can I find someone who will just send me my hardware? Edit: I'm actually waiting on a quote from another couple of vendors for some EMC equipment and an HP Lefthand setup, I'll probably report back with those prices too so I can get a feel if the prices are fair.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Let's talk arrays for a minute. I have a pretty small setup- 4TB HP P2000, 2 VM boxes with 15-20 VM's total, for an office of 25-50 people. Is there any merit to creating my vdisks on multiple raid arrays, one for storage purposes, one for VM host purposes, with the intention of improving performance? I feel like just making one large Raid-50 array over all of the disks is a reasonable decision, but others in my organization feel like there is some reason why that wouldn't be a "best practice". Does anyone have any input?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
adorai posted:The arguments for doing it differently can hold merit, but it really depends on your actual workloads. We run all of our file shares on SATA disk but mix all of our other workloads. Well, that's the thing. The actual file share workload is going to be pretty low, and it's 12 of all of the same drives- 300gb SAS 15k. I just want to prevent bottlenecks at the vdisk/raid level, but I don't know if that's a reasonable concern, or enough reason to chop up my already small storage space into a Raid-5 and two Raid 10's or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
I think I'm about to roll out two raid-50 arrays, six disks each. That gives me 1.2TB usable on each array, which is actually 300GB more than if I used raid 10 + raid 5.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2011 18:35
|
|