News
5/12/2009
11:03 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

DAS VS. SAN - High Capacity

Continuing our examination of the resurgence of direct attached storage (DAS), in this entry we look at the ever-increasing internal capacity of DAS in servers. One of the key reasons users begin looking at a SAN or NAS is when the capacity demands of a single server outpace its internal storage capabilities. This may no longer be justification enough to make the move to networked storage or to continue to expand the network storage you have.

Continuing our examination of the resurgence of direct attached storage (DAS), in this entry we look at the ever-increasing internal capacity of DAS in servers. One of the key reasons users begin looking at a SAN or NAS is when the capacity demands of a single server outpace its internal storage capabilities. This may no longer be justification enough to make the move to networked storage or to continue to expand the network storage you have.What has made DAS more viable in the "can you get enough" challenge is obviously higher capacity hard drives and the increasing adoption of the 2.5" form factor. The combination allows for very dense packaging. 2.5" drives in particular allow for configurations that can offer either reasonable performance with lower capacity or very high capacity some performance sacrifice.

On the performance side Seagate for example with its Savivio 15k.2 drive can deliver a drive running at 15k RPM and a capacity of 147GB. Using the Intel 5500 based servers as a minimal reference point, a 1U server can support 8 of these drives for 1.1TB's of reasonable performance storage. All these drives are SAS 2.0 based running at 6.0Gb/s.

Of course if that is not enough performance then as discussed in our last entry, DAS VS. SAN - Capacity And Performance Management, 400GB's of PCI-E Solid State Storage can also be had for less than $15k.

The capacity side of things is just as interesting. The Seagate Savvio 10k.3 2.5" drive comes in capacities up to 300GB's running at 10K RPM, allowing for 2.4TB's of capacity in that same 1U box. Obviously there are larger servers available that have a higher drive bay; for example there are 2U servers with up to 24 2.5" drive bays for 7.2TB's in a single server.

The net is with DAS storage for mainstream applications you can get the performance or capacity you need but it may be difficult to get both. The storage decision in a DAS world becomes very application specific.

From the SAN side, when the time is right many of the SAN storage systems will switch to 2.5" drives, and they will pick up the same capacity densities that server storage enjoys today. Right now 2.5" drives are still priced at a slight premium over 3.5" drives and other than power savings there are limited compelling reasons to make the switch.

The final area we will explore in our DAS vs. SAN series is efficiency. While SAN can, in most cases, out perform and out scale DAS, its in the area efficiency where it should have the biggest advantage and provide the biggest benefit. Or does it?

Track us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/storageswiss.

Subscribe to our RSS feed.

George Crump is founder of Storage Switzerland, an analyst firm focused on the virtualization and storage marketplaces. It provides strategic consulting and analysis to storage users, suppliers, and integrators. An industry veteran of more than 25 years, Crump has held engineering and sales positions at various IT industry manufacturers and integrators. Prior to Storage Switzerland, he was CTO at one of the nation's largest integrators.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading Must Reads - September 25, 2014
Dark Reading's new Must Reads is a compendium of our best recent coverage of identity and access management. Learn about access control in the age of HTML5, how to improve authentication, why Active Directory is dead, and more.
Flash Poll
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
Enterprises today have a wide range of third-party options to help improve their defenses, including MSSPs, auditing and penetration testing, and DDoS protection. But are there situations in which a service provider might actually increase risk?
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-5485
Published: 2014-09-30
registerConfiglet.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via unspecified vectors, related to the admin interface.

CVE-2012-5486
Published: 2014-09-30
ZPublisher.HTTPRequest._scrubHeader in Zope 2 before 2.13.19, as used in Plone before 4.3 beta 1, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers via a linefeed (LF) character.

CVE-2012-5487
Published: 2014-09-30
The sandbox whitelisting function (allowmodule.py) in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote authenticated users with certain privileges to bypass the Python sandbox restriction and execute arbitrary Python code via vectors related to importing.

CVE-2012-5488
Published: 2014-09-30
python_scripts.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via a crafted URL, related to createObject.

CVE-2012-5489
Published: 2014-09-30
The App.Undo.UndoSupport.get_request_var_or_attr function in Zope before 2.12.21 and 3.13.x before 2.13.11, as used in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1, allows remote authenticated users to gain access to restricted attributes via unspecified vectors.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In our next Dark Reading Radio broadcast, we’ll take a close look at some of the latest research and practices in application security.