Design of a flexible storage solution

Similar Questions

• Storage solutions

  Currently I have a NAS with ~5.5TB of all the drive formatted as a volume with software RAID5 on Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition. I would use it as my data store for storing VHDs. This volume is currently formatted as NTFS and has ~2.5TB of the data on it.

  My question:

  Can I use part of this volume as the data store for my box of ESXi? If so, does need iSCSI to format the volume in anyway resulting in a loss of data or does just live above the already existing NTFS file system? If it formats it, what other options can I using this NAS solution as a data store for ESXi?

  On a side note, my network is 1000Base-T, what kind of performance degradation can expect to store my virtual hard drives on a NAS? I'd be better to just buy a 2 TB drive and stick to the ESXi and use local storage?

  Thanks in advance,

  Tony

  Can I use part of this volume as the data store for my box of ESXi?

  -You can, but there are a few hypotheses... it will be not possible if you cannot make one of these:

  1. you can resize the volume with the NTFS file system.  Cut it down so that you have about 2.75 TB of space, to give you a little leeway for the NTFS file system.  Of course, you resize first side Windows, and then resize the volume RAID5 on the NAS.

  2. When you have narrowed down the NTFS volume on the table, create a new volume and formatting in an iSCSI volume.

  3 configure the iSCSI on NAS and VMware host.

  On a side note, my network is 1000Base-T, what kind of performance degradation can expect to store my virtual hard drives on a NAS?  I'd be better to just buy a 2 TB drive and stick to the ESXi and use local storage?

  -Use frames if your network supports.  You'll be wearing, best case, at the speed of the network.  With this in mind, you may well be better to use local storage for your VMware hosts.  But it really depends on what storage performance requirements are for the virtual machine host VMware, but chances are, local storage will be probably faster.  You will not be able to vMotion anything, or do any of the other features that require shared storage between multiple VMware hosts... not a problem if you have just one host however.

• NAS storage solution possible?  Promise VTRAK 15100 (U320 SCSI) as storage for ESXi/VirtualCenter?

  I have several units Promise VTRAK (12110 and 15100) that I would use as storage for validation using ESXi project and a few pens of blade and 1U servers in a configuration of type 'data center '...  The promise of VTRAKs are 12 to 15 SATA drive enclosures, they have 2 x Channel U320 scsi on the back...

  I would like to install ESXi on blades and 1U servers and have direct storage on the promise of VTRAKs and set up a test environment for the deployment of the Web servers and DB servers.   I see a lot of people who use SAN solutions - BUT I don't want to just throw these VTRAKs.

  Is this possible?  I don't the seen in the HCL, but as we all know, this does not mean that it is not "possible"...

  THANKS TO ALL THOSE WHO CAN PROVIDE INSIGHT.

  So, your options...

  1. It's prob. the best option in terms of performance. It will take a bit to get the LInux drivers sorted if they are not already in the bare metal package OpenFiler.

  2. This option might work, however "multiple jumps" storage (i.e. ESX->->-> storage W2K3 OpenFiler) don't you will probably give the best performance and a lot of "moving parts" to complicate things. I would try to avoid it if possible, and if you want to stick with Windows disk the VTrak then watch StarWind of RocketDivision as an alternative to the OpenFiler/Linux optional #1

  3. NFS of W2K3/W2K8 is also possible. There were a few anecdotal accounts to try and find the default of performance, but you will find that it is "good enough" for your needs

  Among all the options #1 is likely to provide you with the best performance, and you could do with OpenFiler, Windows + StarWind, OpenSolaris or some other distribution Linux of your choice...

• Enterprise storage solutions

  Hi all

  We have a company of 3D rendering and many large files to store. We use a capsule of 3 TB for backups of our Macs, but it is now full in about a year. I don't know where to go from here. Are we investing in a RAID or we rent tons of cloud storage? We use this capsule as "longer than 1 year storage" and buy a new one for the new backups?

  Thank you for your ideas!

  J

  I suggest that you consider a NAS system dedicated for your corporate network. A number of them supports Time Machine for backups as well.

  There are many choices out there, but I suggest you take a look at Synology. An example would be their model DS916 + .

  The extent of the cloud storage, it would work as well. Some benefits would be that if you need to access files from a remote location and must ensure that each remote client has access to the same files. However, this can also be done by using a VPN connection to your LAN to access the NAS.

  The biggest drawback would be the access speeds... especially for Time Machine backups.

• Mac Pro, Flash Storage, Dropbox, and external storage Solutions

  I am considering a Mac Pro to a computer in the enterprise. I hope someone can give an overview and experience with the dilemma of using a computer with a small amount of storage on board, dropbox and external storage devices.

  Background:

  Mac Pro storage on board - The Mac Pro has limited onboard storage. It comes with a 256 k flash memory and is apparently expandable to 512 or 1 TB. But, I can not even know where to buy the storage upgrade. For some reason, it seems even to be available for purchase on Apple's site. I can't understand how much it costs or where to buy it. I found a link showing how to install it, but that's all.

  Dropbox - Dropbox is an important part of the company, or at least my business. The tricky thing is that Dropbox doesn't seem to work very well if this does not work on an operating system main hard drive. I tried once on a Mac Mini Server, and it does not work well. I read on the Dropbox site that it doesn't work so well. The small amount of storage on board available for the Mac Pro means that it is necessary to use an external drive, which is fine with me, with the exception of the question of Dropbox. Is anyone here from an experience with this problem.

  External storage - the question here is as stated above. How to get an external drive on a Mac Pro, the operating system is not installed on, to work properly. I know that most people could read this and suggest to go to the website of Dropbox support for more information. I was able to do that and have nothing. Looking for Mac people who could potentially experience.

  In short, how the hell you upgrade Mac Pro flash storage... where do you get, and how much it costs?  And second, anyone experience using Dropbox on a Mac Pro, where the Dropbox folder is not located on the operating system drive.

  Thanks for any help that can be provided.

  -Apple does not sell to replace internal storage.

  -You can often find storage on eBay and other places. However, isn't that all in storage for some MacBook Pro model will work in the Mac Pro is much slower. One way to tell is that the MacBook you do not have a heatsink on them while the Mac Pro.

  -You can buy external storage Thunderbolt. To access only a disc both an external case USB 3/disc is about as fast as Thunderbolt. Can get pregnant using the portable 2 1/2 standard SSD

  -I did not all the posts here for the use of DB on an external drive.

• What storage Fusion drive or Flash storage solution will work best with Adobe CC software on iMac 5 K retina?

  Hello

  I use Adobe CC per day, mainly Premiere Pro but also After Effects, Illustrator, and Photoshop.

  I'm buying a new iMac 27-inch 5K retina and I was wondering what is the best soltuion storage Fusion or Flash storage drive?

  Which drive will work best with Adobe products and graphics software and similar movies?

  Thank you

  Hmm, if you're looking for performance Combo: speed + storage memory , you can go by car merger.

  However, you can find test for Fusion V/S Flash Player storage on popular Tech sites. You can check the speed of DataAccess speed, storage performance... Speed of reading data, writing speed of data.  so that you can decide, also for the best recommendation, post a thread on the Mac community, so that you can get real answer to multiple users who use drive merger or tried the two Fusion as well the Flash storage.

• Design of components flexible width

  I have an application that has to work in two different widths.

  First question, I can determine programmatically how big the width is as defined in the tag embed of the browser?

  Then, I want to be as flexible as possible page layouts without having to hardcode the sizes of things according to the current resolution.  For example, I have a HBox.  It must be built as follows:

  • fixed button width
  • fixed button width
  • progress bar for flexible width
  • label width fixed
  • fixed button width
  • fixed button width

  If I just put on the buttons & label widths to the absolute pixel measure, how the progress bar grow automatically to fill the remaining space?

  By the time wherever the Application events start to fire, systemManager.screen should

  be the size of the flash player in the browser

  If you set the progressBar width = '100% ', it should be the only thing that

  stretches in the HBox

• XML as a storage solution possible?

  I have a couple of forms that have at least 100 fields on them. Only 4 or 5 fields must be stored in my SQL db, but the entire form must be able to be saved as a draft, and then send final saved as a PDF file for historical purposes.
  
  Rather than add all columns in my db that I really don't need, I thought about the economy as a project I could save the form in the form of XML file. In this way when brought back to the top I can reference the XML tags in my FORM for editing. I've never used before XML, h yes I think its functionality properly? If Yes, what is the most effective way to achieve this? I see that there is the CFXML tag and the XMLNew function, but I don't know which I should use. Any guidance is appreciated!

  We do this all the time. I like to use XML for data of small shops where the
  It's just not worth it to set up a database.

  The basics are as follows.
  You will use the tags to read and write XML files.
  You can use , XMLNew() or tags to create your
  XML, they are all capable and that you use depends on what you want to do.
  You can be aware of xmlParse() to convert text files in
  The objects XML from CF and toString() for converting text CF XML objects.

  A quick and dirty example.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  

• Can a large file transfer solution be designed using BITS?

  Gurus!

  I need your help to design a large file transfer solution. I need to transfer files from a network of about 70000 PCs in a central records repository. The size of the files must be transferred to the PCs range from 10 MB to 2.5 GB. Is it a good idea to use the background intelligent transfer service (BITS) to transfer? Or is it better to use a custom or off the shelf solution FTP (such as IBM managed file transfer) for this? If I use LOCKS, what are the advantages and disadvantages?

  Please let me know gurus!

  Novice kid

  This issue is beyond the scope of this site (for consumers) and to be sure, you get the best (and fastest) reply, we have to ask either on Technet (for IT Pro) or MSDN (for developers)
  http://social.technet.Microsoft.com/forums/en-us/home s/fr-U.S./Accueil
  http://social.msdn.Microsoft.com/Forum
  
  
  If you give us a link to the new thread we can point to some resources it

• Best design solution VPN for Central/branches

  Hi all

  I would like your comments on the design of a VPN account solution required the following:

  Right now, the customer has a single office. I will be putting in place of a Cisco 1811w for them, and its main functions will be wireless, firewall with CBAC and EZVPN server access.

  Server EZVPN function will be carried out so that employees with laptops can work from home.

  In the near future, there will be about 4 branches in operation.

  Static IP address is available for the main office, but I'm not sure if the static IP will be available for the office once they are established (there are 50 / 50 chance).

  There will be an Active Directory server in the central location and will be accessible from the branches.

  My question is - given the uncertainty in the branches having a static IP - what is the best way to implement the VPN to connect them to the branch?

  Each branch will have an installed Cisco 831.

  Is EZVPN a viable, given the above requirements?

  Is it possible to put in place the 831 as customers without XAUTH EZVPN, all keeping XAUTH for employees using EZVPN clients?

  If this does not work, XAUTH might have to.

  Or, given the situation, you would opt for DMVPN... Unfortunately I do not know too much about it as the technology for now... What are the advantages / disadvantages of its use, if it is an appropriate solution to this scenario?

  Thank you all in advance for your comments!

  Sean

  I think that you need to use a mode of expansion of network (configured in the vpngroup) instead of client mode. Just make sure that each office uses a different and not overlapping address space.

• New design of the ESX environment design

  Community,.

  I could use help on the thoughts, currently there are a few projects concerning the upgrade of components of storage network/etc but I thought on a few different approaches.

  Our installation of 175 5.1 ESXi hosts is currently roughly:

  CPU/memory:

  According to the model, over the life cycle, we have about 4 different models active (same HW provider), everyone has the storage/NETWORK card configuration below:

  Storage:

  2 x 4 GB FibreChannel (connected to different fabrics)

  Network:

  NICs 8 x 1 Gbps

  -2 x vMotion (on different switches)

  -2 x management (on different switches)

  -4 x VM traffic (on different switches)

  So what to do in the future? Currently the network is mainly related to 1 Gbit/s because the team of specialists who are not being updated again.

  It is not on the creation of infrastructure plans converged etc, but I thought about it.

  We have no real problem that will push us in one direction. Because the fragmentation of disciplines each team has a different point of view how to do things.

  Case 1

  Keep the current design, but upgrade the network components and storage as needed in the future. It's our way of work now.

  Case 2

  Take a look at a converged infrastructure solution? BladeCenter / infiniband?

  Case 3

  What network virtualization (VMware NSX) with a convergent solution (or not?)

  A few things I want to achieve (no operational requirements (yet))

  -Performance increase/expand

  -Demanding latency

  -Lower costs (cables, DC, power, cooling and administration space) in the future

  What are your experiences, problems, things to think about, what not to do?

  I Don t necessarily need a full explanation (would be nice of course), but if I can get some new thoughts or directions from your answers I could dig into it a little deeper myself. I was wondering based on experiences if it's worth to put more effort into it.

  Do not worry about the investment, if it is interesting to build a business case that can help achieve savings, management etc. it might be useful.

  Hope to hear from you guys

  Hey Wh33ly,

  Breaks down each section a bit here:

  Server hardware (CPU/memory, reduce cables ect)

  -From this point support CPU/memory is still any provider you have access.  However, the obligation to reduce the latency and cables, you may look at some converged computer worms, or something like a Cisco UCS chassis.  The Cisco UCS chassis has two FI who are sitting on the top of the grille that act as the brains of the operation.  At the rear of the chassis, you will have two IOM failet (failet of input/output) these are the external ports for all blade chassis.  Most configuration I see usually have 20Ggbps coming out of the AKA 2 cables by IOM goes up to the FI or 40Gbps, up aka YEW 4 cables.  Nevertheless the frame Cisco UCS reducing much cables as only cables coming out of the chassis are those of your IOM modules.  The cables only leaving this rack will be those from the FI to your basic network infrastructure.  With this in mind, any Center of blade will usually reduce your cable management and it will also reduce traffic on your network East/West as live all the blades in the same chassis.

  Because the calculation is similarly any provider you are with, questions you would have to ask is what are the problems that this chassis resolved during my current infrastructure?  This problem must be a value of extra time and resources it will take to install the new infrastructure and migrate on.

  Networking

  -When it comes to networking, nothing wrong with 1 GB but 10 GB price sank so quickly become the default.  Also with 40 GB coming down the pipe very little time this should also lower the cost of 10 GB which can make a little more progress a best migration plan.

  -10 GB also reduces the cables that you get 10 cables with a value of 1 speed

  -If you decide to go all the 10 GB, you want to consider migration to the VDS switches.  Virtual distributed switches offer many benefits and also allows you to use the new control of NIOC to control how each group of fate as 10 GB ports.  So now, you can define each group of ports on the amount of traffic it gets and how much stock it.  This gives a lot of flexibility

  -NSX, NSX is ideal if you want to be able to control your VLAN s, Firewall, VLAN, Speration through Vmware / vSPhere.  This gives a huge amount of automation, flexibility and free service capabilities, but it does NOT increase the speed.  Even with the NSX your sub with connections are always going to be your performance brand bottle neck or a bench.  So if your running all the 1 GB of network even if you move to NSX will always only clocked you at 1 GB.  Yes NSX will give you more flexibility and may also reduce some of the East/West traffic, but your still limited to your physical hardware.  In this spirit, I would say that the biggest assets NSX is if you're a provide service, multitendcy environment, or you require the ability to create a VLAN ect so automation, scripts or self service portals.  Like anything else, I watch NSX as a tool, and if it's the right tool for the job then I use it, if not then I don't have.

  Long story short, networking is quickly moving to 10 GB, there is no direct NEED to jump ship as soon as possible, but its something that you might want to look into the establishment of the budget over the next year or two to define yourself to easier transitions.  10 GB also allows backup of the computer virtual a LOT faster that can help with RTO, RPO requirements.

  Storage

  All boils down to how much space do you need and how much performance do you need?   One thing is for certain that the SSD is here to stay and will be the future of the SAN.  Almost each SAN vendor now has a solution at several levels, hybrid solution or any SSD solution.  The nice thing about all SAN SSD solutions is that you no longer have to spend cycles administrative construction of storage pools, tweaking them, with groups bronze, silver, gold, for performance.  This all goes with all SSD without that everything is super fast.  That said, there are also many storage solutions converged to come, the local host caching and VSAN type stuff.  It is all the pressure put on businesses in SAN to find ways to be more innovative to make storage and lower prices as its much cheaper to buy 3 guests with drives then just put some kind of Storage Virtualization top layer all to share the lun/storage.  In the next year or 2 you will start to see the space of SAN saturated with many small businesses that make the converged storage, VSAN and cached local solutions duly lower price points.

  When your storage decision goes forward, you want to go with the SAN/supplier who offers the best performance for your money and gives you enough space for future growth with IOPS / s.  Tpyically when I size a SAN, I put 2-3 years worth of memory buffer in there for consumtion IOPS / s and space, like the SAN buy is one of the biggest, a COMPUTING organization must do.  If this is done on arrival of the IOPS / s and badly or space in a year it's hard to go back to the honeypot fruitful asking more money again, but also all SSD SAN are that they are still a bit expensive and not always in the budgets of peoples.

  I hope this helped,

  If you have any questions please let me know.

• VNX 5300 file shared storage - connect to Cisco UCS 6200 interconnection fabric

  Hello

  I'm designing a calculation and Shared Storage solution to help

  • EMC VNX 5300 shared storage
    • Block
    • File - sharing two Data Mover with i/o 10GE ports
  • Cisco UCS Blade Server Platform
    • Interconnection of Cisco UCS 6248 fabric
    • Chassis Cisco UCS 5108

  I have a question about where the connection Data movers with i/o 10GE ports. I connected to the 6248 UCS Cisco fabric interconnections or connect them to the switch IP network?

  kind is ok.

• Exchange 2007: HA solution for the mailbox role

  Hello!

  I'm a new infrastructure of Exchange 2007 on VMWare vSphere 4.1 design... My question is about HA for servers with the role of box mailbox.

  I need to no (or little) downtime, so HA vSphere isn't enough... in design documents, I found two solutions:

  -two VM clustered Windows 2008 (part of witness) + CSC Exchange (CCR)

  -a single VM with vSphere active FT

  Which is the best solution in your opinion / experience? I would use FT but I'm worried by the limit of 1vCPU.

  Thank you!

  The amount of required CPU will be directly linked the number of mailboxes, that you intend to host the mailbox profile.  A single vCPU should be plenty for up to the mailbox of 750-1000 of a medium profile (100 messages sent/rec'd by day).  The MS Exchange team has a calculator that you can use to determine the exact cpu and memory required for your configuration (http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/07/05/445802.aspx).

  EMC has conducted trials of a unique virtual machine running 1000 mailboxes and protected by FT (http://www.emc.com/collateral/hardware/technical-documentation/h6237-virtual-infrastructure-clariion-cx4-120-vsphere-reference-architecture.pdf).

  Which solution is right for you will depend on what you are trying to protect and how much you want to spend on the solution.  FT will be work very well protect against hardware failures, not need business licenses and have no service interruptions but as failover, is limited to a single vCPU.  Exchange 2007 CCR will protect against hardware and software failures (awareness of the Exchange), but you will have to maintain two virtual machines / systemes systems operating, requires twice the storage and requires licensing of the company.

  -alex

• VMware vSphere iSCSI design

  We try to design our VMware vSphere solution offers a storage solution because of the concern of cost iSCSI SAN ideally we would like SAN FC but cannot so teenhe best next solution is iSCSI.

  I've been watching the EMC AX4 iSCSI and HP Lefthand and MSA2000i solutions. A query or concern I have look at some of these iSCSI is the 'iSCSI host connect' speed storage. For the EMC AX4, there 2 * 1 GB NIC, HP have also 2 * 1 GB while the HP Lefthand solution has 2 * 1 GB and can be upgraded to 10GB network card.

  What worries is to presume were going to run a large number of virtual machines on the SAN will be a 1 GB NIC be adequate to support the required flow for virtual machines or with new maps 10 GB and vShpere argue that of course will be a better option, but then taking into account the 10 GB of referral and the NIC server that works of course raise the price.

  Someone with experience on iSCSI and FC SAN experience provide some suggestions on flow requirements.

  Thank you very much

  Can not say that StarWind is bad or bad software, I use it for long enough.

• Storage of photos, external hard drive, Dropbox, need space

  Hi, I'm under the Photos to Mac and my computer has 120 GB. I have a lot of pictures and I also TAKE a lot of photos, and I ran out of space. So, I try to find a solution in the future. I'll write a short list of what I've tried so far and I'm subscribed to services, but I hope someone can help me create a system that works in the long term, especially so that my photos and videos are safe and I'll always have more than one backup.

  I have dropbox and download automatic camera, and I also have pictures of Google which stores the version not high resolution of all. I bought a large external hard drive today and copied my library of Photos on it, but now I think... If I connect my iPhone to my computer and it starts automatically upload all my pictures BUT my external hard drive is not connected... where are these pictures? A different photo library? How can I get the new additions on the hard drive?

  Dropbox is a solution? Just copy the entire photo library in dropbox? If so, make new additions in photos automatically the head of this dropbox folder? I have to keep this dropbox folder sync on my computer (in which case... There is not enough space on the hard drive...).

  In addition, the library of photos on the mac is 35 GB, but the mac is relatively new. My iPhotos library of before a 250 GB and I would like a way to combine all these old photos in a library of solid, but with only 120 GB on this computer, how can I manage consolidate all this?

  Finally, go ahead I intend to start using a camera DSLR and editing photos... what kind of storage solution/system I need? I think it would be awkward hanging around external hard drives with libraries on them?

  I hope that these issues are clear, and I would appreciate any input.

  Dropbox is a solution? Just copy the entire photo library in dropbox? If so, make new additions in photos automatically the head of this dropbox folder? I have to keep this dropbox folder sync on my computer (in which case... There is not enough space on the hard drive...).

  absolutely not - the photo library may not be on DropBox, as a library of operation or a backup - it may be local

  Basically, the answer is that if you want to use high-quality photos, you need a lot more storage Mac - 120 GB is tiny - if you want to make things interesting to improve your storage space

  You can use iCloud photo library with photos optimized on your computer, but can be slow to download and required Internet to make changes

  LN