I have a project on to replace the storage that our virtual farms are using. We replaced the hosts last year but due to budget constraints we couldn't afford to replace the storages until now.
A high end NAS from a well respected company has come to my attention. This NAS has 24 drive bays, 16GB RAM, an 8 core Xeon CPU and two 10GbaseT network interfaces.
I can outfit two of these things entirely with 960GB Samsung enterprise SSDs and still pay less than what I would for a single SAN from the likes of Dell outfitted with less spinning rust storage. I feel I can't ignore this.
So I guess I have two questions:
1) Could the NAS cope with the workload? The farm has three virtual hosts. It holds pretty much all of the business's servers including user file storage, DCs and a few SQL databases.
2) This thing talks iSCSI and NFS. It strikes me as a fairly bad idea to present this thing as block storage to the virtual hosts when in fact it isn't. Layering two file systems (VMFS and Ext3) on this thing seems wasteful whereas at least if I use NFS the VMDKs would be stored directly on the main file system. Would I be better using NFS or iSCSI?