D3/Linux & SAN

#1

Just wondering if anyone has D3/Linux running against a SAN and would
like to share their experiences - either on forum or directly to
rossf (AT) stamina (DOT) com.au

#2

The only SAN's that are worth investigating are those that are based on
fibre optic, I rember doing some re-search a while ago on them and Compaq/HP
or whatever they call themselves have got a couple that looked good. I don't
believe CAT5/CAT6 network cabling is any good for anything other than
connecting computers/routers/print servers etc, to put it into use for
something as critical as file storage is suicidal.

Andrew

"Glen B" <no$pamwebmaster@no$pamforallspec.com> wrote

Quote:

How are you considering implementing a SAN? I have no use for one at
the
moment, but I have been reading about Linux SANs. In doing so, I've also
been trying to keep up with the new disk technologies that consistently
roll
out new ways of doing things. Take iSCSI for instance. I can see the
benefits of re-using Ethernet infrastructure to consolidate existing
storage, but would anyone seriously rely on such technology for crucial
data
I/O? I know I wouldn't. I'd end up spending far more than I have, to build
a
bullet-proof fiber storage network. Collisions and dropped packets from
shotty twisted-pair manufacturing and RF noise still haunts me to this
day.
Yes, twisted pair technology has gotten better, but can anyone honestly
say
that you have purchased a 500' roll of cable that didn't have atleast one
break in it? I've bought many rolls and have to say that it's a
crap-shoot.

Glen

"Ross Ferris" <rossf (AT) stamina (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:1146041788.475311.258110 (AT) e56g2000cwe (DOT) googlegroups.com...
Just wondering if anyone has D3/Linux running against a SAN and would
like to share their experiences - either on forum or directly to
rossf (AT) stamina (DOT) com.au

#3

Glen,

Client is looking @ re-deploying D3/Linux onto a blade server hooked up
to corporate SAN. These things aren't going to work via your garden
variety ethernet, but rather a nice little (yes, I DO mean relatively
short too) 2Gb fibre connection, so more like the fibre channel stuff
you would find across in larger AIX environments.

In this case the SAN is already being accessed by around 30 windows
servers (real & virtual), including 5 running SQL Server applications,
so providing the Linux drivers for the SAN are "rock solid" ....

Anyway, thanks for those that have responded directly

#4

would it be more beneficial to get a gigabit switch into the equation or
would it be better to just get a fibre link between the machine and the san
?

I'm thinking the switch would create one more link in the chain that could
fail

andrew

"Glen B" <no$pamwebmaster@no$pamforallspec.com> wrote

Quote:

Evidentally, Adaptec disagrees with both of us since they are one of the
few companies producing a CPU off-loading card specifically for 100MB and
1000MB iSCSI attachment. @ ~$600, I'd much rather put that towards a fiber
solution.
I'm assuming that someone would be building a solitary gigabit ethernet
network specifically for the SAN and then bridging it with a gigabit
router
to other networks. Still, If you can't get a gigabit link from your
machine
to the bridge router due to noise or crappy existing wiring, then where's
the cost/bit savings? You might as well just plug up a USB 2.0 drive and
save the $$. :P

Glen

"Andrew Kenna" <akenna (AT) westnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in message

news:44517c04$0$13197$61c65585 (AT) un-2park-reader-01 (DOT) sydney.pipenetworks.com.au

....

Quote:

The only SAN's that are worth investigating are those that are based on
fibre optic, I rember doing some re-search a while ago on them and
Compaq/HP
or whatever they call themselves have got a couple that looked good. I
don't
believe CAT5/CAT6 network cabling is any good for anything other than
connecting computers/routers/print servers etc, to put it into use for
something as critical as file storage is suicidal.

Andrew

"Glen B" <no$pamwebmaster@no$pamforallspec.com> wrote in message
news:9Y-dnSs1wuAvPtLZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com...
How are you considering implementing a SAN? I have no use for one at
the
moment, but I have been reading about Linux SANs. In doing so, I've
also
been trying to keep up with the new disk technologies that consistently
roll
out new ways of doing things. Take iSCSI for instance. I can see the
benefits of re-using Ethernet infrastructure to consolidate existing
storage, but would anyone seriously rely on such technology for crucial
data
I/O? I know I wouldn't. I'd end up spending far more than I have, to
build
a
bullet-proof fiber storage network. Collisions and dropped packets from
shotty twisted-pair manufacturing and RF noise still haunts me to this
day.
Yes, twisted pair technology has gotten better, but can anyone honestly
say
that you have purchased a 500' roll of cable that didn't have atleast
one
break in it? I've bought many rolls and have to say that it's a
crap-shoot.

Glen

"Ross Ferris" <rossf (AT) stamina (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:1146041788.475311.258110 (AT) e56g2000cwe (DOT) googlegroups.com...
Just wondering if anyone has D3/Linux running against a SAN and would
like to share their experiences - either on forum or directly to
rossf (AT) stamina (DOT) com.au

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

D3/Linux & SAN

comp.databases.pick comp.databases.pick

D3/Linux & SAN - 04-26-2006 , 03:56 AM

Re: D3/Linux & SAN - 04-27-2006 , 09:18 PM

Re: D3/Linux & SAN - 04-27-2006 , 09:49 PM

Re: D3/Linux & SAN - 05-05-2006 , 04:25 AM