Xsan vs. 3rd party SAN

Larth · partially protected Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 5

We are considering upgrading our file storage to a SAN, for the high-availability advantages of multipathing, server failover, and volume expansion. We would reshare the space to AFP and SMB clients.

It's my job to satisfy the needs of the Mac clients in our prepress department. My IT department wants to go with a non-Apple SAN. Would that lead to any foreseeable disadvantages on the Mac side? Limit our ability to search for files? Prevent the use of Time Machine? Or Network Home Directories? or Software Updates? or System Imaging? Would it complicate server failover? Anything else?

Thanks,
--Larth

messenger82 · Xsan Master Joined: 16 Jan 2007 Posts: 113

I would say no to all questions, AFP and SMB are agnostic to storage attached to the xServe. In the terms you have defined XSAN and third party systems would be comparable.

BUT

I don't know where you would find a cheaper, more reliable (on Apple hardware), and better supported SAN solution than what Apple has put together for the money. We are now in our third iteration of XSAN in our facility. We are a government organization and we have had to do an RFP with cost analysis each time. No one elses solution has come close in terms of value in quality.

Other groups I have worked with have tried third party, in the long run they spend more money, have more hassle, and less support.

abstractrude · Xsan Master Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 864

tell us more about what you want to actually do with the SAN. This is really important, often people in IT departments don't know much about what SANs actually do. that being said xsan is the best price you will find, it is also the misunderstood.

truth is Xsan has a ton of great redundant features but be careful. The number of components in an Xsan can make it even more likely to experience downtime. For example you loose a fibre switch, metadata controller a storage controller. Sure all these parts can be failover/redundant but the complexity brings moores law into play. for large Xsans you will need an administrator for them. Not full time but definitley someone on site or close that you can call when there are issues.

Larth · partially protected Joined: 24 Jul 2008 Posts: 5

We're looking at SAN to provide the space for actively used Virtual Machines, MySQL database, Web pages, Groupwise mail etc., Open LDAP, Mac graphics files & fonts, Mac home directories, Mac system images, and any little office files that need sharing.

Let me re-emphasize, IT is leaning toward a non-Apple SAN. You mention the likelihood of downtime... do you meany that Xsan would be more prone to downtime than another SAN? Or that it's true of SAN in general? Our top concern is to avoid downtime, and I was under the impression that SAN would be key to creating a highly redundant, highly available environment. Am I heading down a wrong path here?