[thelist] Share a drive across multiple webserver... NAS or SAN?

[Jeff Wilhelm]

You could do a fibre channel SAN, but then you'd need FC cards in the
servers.

We usually buy storage servers (we like SiliconMechanics for NAS boxes)
like:
http://www.siliconmechanics.com/c221/storage-server.php
and then just map drives. With dual gig-E ports the throughput is fine.

Or, we throw a couple of PowerVaults off the machines, like we did
yesterday. But bang for the buck SiliconMechanics is awesome.

Jeff



----Original Message----
From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org
[mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org] On Behalf Of
Joshua Olson Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:05 AM To:
thelist at lists.evolt.org Subject: [thelist] Share a drive
across multiple webserver... NAS or SAN? 

> Hi listees,
> 
> If I wanted to be able to share a drive across multiple
> servers and maximize the amount of throughput, would I
> want to install a NAS or a SAN?  
> 
> Until yesterday, I thought I wanted a SAN.  Then, someone
> told me that only one web server can directly connect to
> the SAN (creating a LUN) and the other servers would then
> share the local drive... thusly piping all traffic
> through the controlling server.  Therefore, a SAN is no
> better than a NAS in terms of concurrency.  Is that
> correct?      
> 
> <><><><><><><><><><>
> Joshua Olson
> Web Application Engineer
> WAE Tech Inc.
> http://www.waetech.com/service_areas/
> 706.210.0168