I would start by commenting on the following aspect that you mentioned: > Our sysadmin is >> really overloaded and would prefer something that does not suck up all her >> time in maintenance and configuration. I know of no SAN technology that does not suck up a substantial portion of sysadmin time :-) , especially when it comes to something that is point and click and has all the reliability features. If your sysadmin is overloaded and you throw him the task of monitoring an entirely new technology in the production environment, be very afraid of the amount of time your sysadmin will need to devote. If you run a one or two man shop, you might need either extra consultancy services from your chosen vendor (pointing to the budget), or temp extra man power to disengage your sys admin from already established duties, so he can feel comfortable enough to play with the new kit and establish the production baseline. Don't believe in point and click interfaces that make wonders and put everything on auto pilot, or expert monitoring interfaces that make sense. Now, about the equipment. Capacity-wise you mention more or less 4 Tbytes. For SAN standards that is not really very big, to justify a technology switch (RAID/NAS/DAS ---> SAN). If projections (that you do not mention) say it will jump to tenths of Tbytes within the next 24 months, then yes, do go to a SAN solution. Alternatively, if within the next couple of years you are going to be well under the 10 Tbyte limit, chained configurations of SAS/SATA controllers do exist in the market that offer both adequate levels of redundancy if they are duplicated (typical scenario RAID BOX 1 at location 1 >-----> rsync <----> RAID BOX2 at location2), without the extra expense of SAN replication protocols. When we passed that limit, we looked at SANs. In addition, whether you need and how you define your config parameters (RAID level at disk layer, fabric connects, replication paramaters) will also depend on the actual applications. Capacity is one factor, but average I/O performance, number of IOPS (I/O ops per sec) are also important parameters of workload characterization. Flat file environments typically need stripes (RAID 10) at controller level, but again how you choose to spread them and connect them to file system parameters (block size, number of inodes, or other SAN FS parameters) can vary if you choose to do formatting and allow say massive FTP-ing or file syncing from the same volumes simultaneously. What I suggest you do is get your sys admin to perform a base line of current activity using tools like iostat, vmstat or other relevant sys performance toolkits, and ask the vendor to comment on what would be the equivalent ones on the SAN kit/new box or let them get you a "try and buy" deal, before you commit to choices for performance, beyond the "I consolidate, therefore I gain" approach. HP SAN kit tends to be good, especially at larger storage quantities. For smaller based SANs or SAS/SATA solutions, have a look at EMC and Dell, that have products for Linux. I would stay clear (personal opinion) of XSAN based kits from Apple. The experiences I had were not good when it came to performance and file compatibility issues (even if Apple claims it can talk to all sorts of Unices), but excellent when it came to user friendliness, which for me was not very helpful. There are people in the UK that are large Apple server customers, especially in the life science arena, that are aware of its limitations and probably could say similar things. If you would like more specific answers, you have to be more specific about your exact workload. You mention flatfile storage. OK, but are you going to be formatting them on the same volume, formatting them and accessing them via FTP, number of simultaneous users on the access node? Best Regards, GM -- -- George B. Magklaras Senior Computer Systems Engineer/UNIX Systems Administrator The Biotechnology Centre of Oslo, University of Oslo http://www.biotek.uio.no/ EMBnet Norway: http://www.biotek.uio.no/EMBNET/ martin goodson wrote: > I'd like to ask for some advice on the design of a new storage system: > > We are looking to buy a basic SAN storage system with ~ 4 TB usable > capacity. Our total budget is £15,000 (~$25,000?). The filesystem is for > bioinformatics computational work including a fair amount of database access > but also typical bioinformatics flat file access (>1Gb files). > > We would like good performance but really reliability is the number one > issue. The SAN would be in use day and night by a 60 node cluster so I guess > we would be looking at enterprise level reliability if not 24/7 (is there a > difference?). We plan to attach 4 servers to the SAN which all would be > linux intel/AMD. > > We have been using RAID5 SATA with an adaptec fs4500 box with really bad > experiences so we would really like to get this right. (We have had problems > with the controller as well drives failing during RAID5 rebuild.) Good > hardware monitoring would be a must. The controller and basically the whole > system must be really well supported, especially in Linux. Our sysadmin is > really overloaded and would prefer something that does not suck up all her > time in maintenance and configuration. > > Just to be perfectly clear, our priorities are reliability >>> size > > performance. > > We already have a quote from HP for a SCSI Modular Storage Array with SAN > Switch 2Gbit/8 port BASE SAN KIT. > Is this a reasonable setup. Does anyone have any experience with this kit or > can suggest alternatives? > Is SCSI over-specifying? Are enterprise SATA drives / controllers /systems > now up to scratch? Should we be using RAID6 or RAID10? > > We would really really appreciate some help here. > > Thanks in advance, > > Martin Goodson > Functional Genetics Unit > Oxford University > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bioclusters maillist - Bioclusters at bioinformatics.org > https://bioinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/bioclusters >