No announcement yet.

Direct Attached Storage solution needed

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Direct Attached Storage solution needed

    Hi there,

    First time posting. I'm scouring the internet in hopes of getting some opinions on what others would do here...

    I have a network build to do. I know what I'm doing for everything except the part where I need to recommend a server + about 4TB of attached storage. Right now, I'm looking to do an HP server(we must use HP servers), but what I'm not sure of, is the best way of getting that 4TB of storage on there. Right now, I really like the Dell MD3000 unit. It can hold 15 300GB 15k rpm SAS drives. It will be supporting 5 dual proc, core 2 duo workstations(with 4GB of memory) that will be running some serious number crunching analysis piece of software, the data being fed from the server and the results sent back to the server for storage. Lots of I/O. This must be a Windows 2003 R2 compatible solution. Down the road, I'm not sure of how much additional storage we'd need, but I'm told 8TB total down the road may be needed. The MD3000 can be connected to 2 MD1000 units, though they only use 2.5" SAS drives, so no 300GB 15k rpm SAS drives, I'd have to settle for 10k rpm unit. All suggestions are welcome. Thanks!!!

  • #2
    Re: Direct Attached Storage solution needed

    We use easyraid for our storage. Awesome gb/$ ratio. We use the smallest one for now but have plans on buying something in par with what you are asking for. It is using SATA2 harddrives, not sure if that is acceptable.

    Storage: easyRAIDQ12+ F2R2 (FC 2 x 2 Gbit.) 12 slot with 12 500GB disks, 6TB raw data.
    read more:

    FC switch: SANbox 1400 limited fabric switch with (10) 2Gb ports, (1) power supply, (10) SFPs
    read more:

    HBA: QLogicīs SANBlade QLA2340 host bus adapter
    read more:

    It's landing somewhere in the area of €9,000 (or $12,000 if you preferr)

    I'm not sure how you will work with this storage but I'd like to mention the possible problems with the size of the partitions due to limitations in the protocol.
    read more:
    Last edited by Anders; 22nd March 2007, 18:38. Reason: Updated info. Added partition size considerations.
    A wise man once said: "Assumption is the mother of all fu*k ups".

    Any advice I give is to the best of my knowledge, there is no guarantee what so ever that it will actually work in your particular scenario. I will not accept any responsibility for unexpected consequences, after all - you are taking advice from a complete stranger over the internet. =)