Solutions Architect / Systems Engineer at Unique Digital, Inc.
Real User
Jun 9, 2020
There can be MANY things to be considered here, but it can also be simple. As with most IT infrastructure things, there are plenty of variables that might apply in some scenarios and not in others. Given the limited about of information we have to work with, I'd say it mostly boils down to a few things:
(1) Is this data to be accessed and manipulated by a human user, or by another computer (such as an application server or data base server).
(2) Are the files in question large files that are sequentially accessed (video, audio, etc) or are they "small-block RANDOM" in nature - or is it a mix?
(3) Do you have specific network constraints between the storage and the systems accessing it?
Solutions Architect at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Jun 9, 2020
Depending on Requirements & what workload defined for NAS vs SAN
NAS - Fabric -tcp/ip- File Level -Performance - lower -Scalability - limited -Manageability - easier to manage - Price - less
SAN- Fabric -FC Networks - Block Level -Performance - Higher -Scalability - scale up-scale -out -Manageability - more complex to manage Price -More expensive
Solution Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Dec 30, 2020
First, we should define what we mean by SAN and NAS. The most common and general definition is: SAN is a stack of block access protocols and hardware, and NAS is file-level protocols. So, the choice depends on the task at hand. In my opinion, NAS is easier to manage and maintain if used for virtual machines datastores - NFS for VMware and xen and cifs for Hyper-v. File protocols are also good in sql server clustering (no need in middleware like iSCSI or costly FC SAN infrastructure). For now (end of 2020), file protocols also have faster access speed than FC (32Gb FC vs 100Gb Ethernet or even more via single link). File protocols also have an advantage if you run DECO on your storage - you don't need to run UNMAP on host, which doesn't work in some configurations and needs additional attention and administrator's time. On the other hand, block protocols (SAN) are mature, have a wide install base, and a huge amount of vendors are supported.
Senior Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Jun 10, 2020
The type of usage has first to be taken into consideration.
Most work can be done on a NAS as disks have grown faster.
However, high performance DB should be on SAN.
In the longerterm, NAS can suffer as some users have the tendency to put DBs there because of the relative ease of use
Enterprise SAN offers robust and scalable storage solutions, enabling businesses to manage data efficiently. Designed for complex environments, it supports high availability and reliability. Enterprise SAN solutions cater to organizations needing comprehensive data storage and management systems. Renowned for their high-speed connectivity and efficient data access, these solutions integrate redundancies and data protection mechanisms to minimize downtime and loss. Their architecture...
NAS: cheaper, slower to access, easier to manage
SAN: more expensive, fast access, needs specialist management skillset.
SAN is generally used when you need lots of storage close to computing power.
NAS when you need storage shared by networked users.
There can be MANY things to be considered here, but it can also be simple. As with most IT infrastructure things, there are plenty of variables that might apply in some scenarios and not in others. Given the limited about of information we have to work with, I'd say it mostly boils down to a few things:
(1) Is this data to be accessed and manipulated by a human user, or by another computer (such as an application server or data base server).
(2) Are the files in question large files that are sequentially accessed (video, audio, etc) or are they "small-block RANDOM" in nature - or is it a mix?
(3) Do you have specific network constraints between the storage and the systems accessing it?
Depending on Requirements & what workload defined for NAS vs SAN
NAS - Fabric -tcp/ip- File Level -Performance - lower -Scalability - limited -Manageability - easier to manage - Price - less
SAN- Fabric -FC Networks - Block Level -Performance - Higher -Scalability - scale up-scale -out -Manageability - more complex to manage Price -More expensive
First, we should define what we mean by SAN and NAS. The most common and general definition is: SAN is a stack of block access protocols and hardware, and NAS is file-level protocols. So, the choice depends on the task at hand. In my opinion, NAS is easier to manage and maintain if used for virtual machines datastores - NFS for VMware and xen and cifs for Hyper-v. File protocols are also good in sql server clustering (no need in middleware like iSCSI or costly FC SAN infrastructure). For now (end of 2020), file protocols also have faster access speed than FC (32Gb FC vs 100Gb Ethernet or even more via single link). File protocols also have an advantage if you run DECO on your storage - you don't need to run UNMAP on host, which doesn't work in some configurations and needs additional attention and administrator's time. On the other hand, block protocols (SAN) are mature, have a wide install base, and a huge amount of vendors are supported.
The type of usage has first to be taken into consideration.
Most work can be done on a NAS as disks have grown faster.
However, high performance DB should be on SAN.
In the longerterm, NAS can suffer as some users have the tendency to put DBs there because of the relative ease of use
You will understand clearly having a look at:
www.backblaze.com/blog/whats-the-diff-nas-vs-san/> www.backblaze.com/blog/whats-the-diff-nas-vs-san/
www.enterprisestorageforum.com/storage-networking/nas-vs.-san-differences-and-use-cases.html