The raw performance of the FAS3020c didn't match up to my expectations. It definitely has punch, but I couldn't push it much
past 60MBps in the read tests, and writes dropped below that. This is likely due to the dual-dialect nature of the solution,
but I'm reasonably sure that some tweaking could improve those numbers.
The clustering capabilities of the FAS3020c are something to behold. Of all the redundant solutions in this test, NetApp's
was by far the most complex, requiring specific Fibre Channel loop wiring between the controllers and disk shelves and two
massive clustering cables that connect the controllers. Maybe every vendor should go so far: The result was completely seamless
fail-over, the test unit accomplishing a full takeover of a failed controller without a hitch.
The replication features in the FAS3020c offer the ability to replicate volumes to other arrays on an immediate or scheduled
basis, functioning almost exactly like a Unix cron job.
Network Appliance has done a good job of integrating iSCSI into its seasoned filer line. The FAS3020c is full-featured and
rock-solid, and NetApp's support is the stuff of legend, with reports of customers receiving replacement disks before they
even knew that a disk in their filer had gone bad. Although it didn't post the best numbers in my performance tests, the FAS3020c
is hard to beat.
Rasilient Rastor 4000
Rasilient's Rastor 4000 is a 3U, 15-spindle storage array incorporating redundant controllers within the chassis. In this
way, it resembles the EqualLogic PS200E, but the comparisons don't go much further than that. When I unpacked the Rastor 4000,
I immediately thought that the hot-swap trays were too flimsy. The release handles are made from thin plastic, and I feared
that they might break during the seating or removal of a drive. Also, the construction tolerances in the chassis itself leave
something to be desired: Drives don't always line up with their companions, leaving the array looking somewhat snaggletoothed.
Looks aren't everything, however.
The Rastor 4000 is based on a custom Linux kernel, a trait shared by several units in the test, and it incorporates two separate
controllers in the chassis. Each controller consists of a Pentium 4-based mainboard, contains a gigabyte of RAM, and boots
from flash.
As with the other arrays, a brief console session to establish IP address information on the controllers led me to the Web
GUI. The interface is notable for its simplicity, but it's not as intuitive as some of the others in the test. Volume creation
and host presentation can leave you scratching your head, and CHAP authentication and selected IQN presentation parameters
require some digging. There is also an interface for viewing the system status and modifying e-mail addresses that should
receive alerts. What's missing is any form of alert-level configuration. It's either on or off, and the Rastor 4000 generates
e-mail alerts fairly regularly, which can get annoying -- 18 e-mails are sent every time the system boots. It would be nice
to be able to configure alert levels per address.
In the performance testing, the Rastor 4000 held its own through many of the tests, with a solid showing near the middle of
the pack, but faltered in the streaming read and write tests under Windows. The same tests under Linux went more smoothly,
with the Rastor turning in a solid performance. As with all of the other arrays, tweaking could potentially drive these numbers
up.
The Rastor 4000 supports snapshots, but it doesn't offer snapshot allocation settings or the ability to mark snapshots read/write
-- snapshots can only be read. The Rastor 4000 managed a controller failure well, turning in a sub-30-second fail-over time
that was handled smoothly by both Linux and Windows.
In the end, the Rasilient Rastor 4000 is a capable storage array and a fully redundant iSCSI target, but it simply lacks finesse.
The Rastor would be more attractive if it were constructed with a little more attention to detail.
On target with iSCSI
Given the cost of big SCSI SAN storage today, and the fact that most infrastructures simply don't require the speed and throughput
of a Fibre Channel SAN, making the case for iSCSI storage is simple. SATA drives are more than adequate for most e-mail, database,
and file storage applications, and so is the 1Gbps iSCSI transport. The low cost of entry, combined with the ease of integration,
make the SATA-iSCSI combination a no-brainer when compared with even a stand-alone file server. A rack-mount server with six
147GB SCSI disks will generally cost you more than a low-end iSCSI storage array, and it's a less effective way to provide
storage to multiple applications.
All of the arrays I tested are capable of providing large storage at the center of an infrastructure, but their performance
and resilience will differ wildly, depending on the application. For a general-purpose storage array in a midsize infrastructure,
the EqualLogic and NetApp products are excellent choices. Both products are feature-packed and polished. The Intransa solution
takes the bronze here, although its capacity, resiliency, and throughput are likewise capable of supporting most applications.
The Adaptec, Celeros, and Rasilient solutions match up well for smaller infrastructures where the dollar needs to go farther.
The Snap Server 18000 in particular would function well as a small-office or branch-office storage unit, providing NFS and
CIFS file sharing in addition to iSCSI disk-to-disk backups. The EzSAN XR23 and Rastor 4000 provide more native capacity than
the Snap Server does, and they're better tuned to provide big volumes to smaller networks. The redundancy in the Rastor 4000
gives it an edge over the EzSAN, albeit at twice the price.
E-mail
Printer Friendly
Reprints
(InfoWorld) - In the litigious world we live in, deploying a unified communications platform in your enterprise could...
