Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm specing a vSphere 5.1 two host setup and I'm questioning whether to use local storage in each server with VMware's VSA or go diskless with a Synology NAS which comes highly recommended.

If we leave cost out of the discussion, what should I consider when choosing either option.

share|improve this question
Do you care about performance? – ewwhite Oct 13 '12 at 10:56
Well lets start with why are you "questioning" in the first place? Considering that the option you're normally inclined to pick (whichever that is) is probably the one you're used to supporting in general on other server platforms, what prompted you to question that? – RobM Oct 13 '12 at 10:59
Yes. I will run ~10-15 VMs ranging from Windows 2012 RDS, AD, linux email server etc. With regards to users we're talking less than 10. – joshu Oct 13 '12 at 11:00
@DJPon3 because I don't have any experience with the VSA and I'd like to hear what others say before I go with a NAS type solution which seems to be more common. – joshu Oct 13 '12 at 11:04

Go NAS unless you never want to use your shared storage for anything other than VMware. The Synology offers a number of useful feature that you may want to use outside your VMware environment. In addition, given the number of users, you probably don't need a cluster that requires multiple storage servers. If you absolutely have to have 24by7 uptime even if one of your servers fails, then I would think that VSA would work.

We went with Synology and have not been disappointed.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.