Opinions on 2 HP SAN's

Andy100 · 4 Jun 2009 at 03:09

Hi Guys,

We're looking to move to a virtualized environment for our Head Office servers.

We currently have 12 physical servers that we're going to move to two virtual servers. None of these servers have particularly high disk I/O's and we currently have around 1TB of used disk space between all of them.

Several systems integrators have tendered for the project with the two in the shortlist both offering HP solutions.

One is suggesting we move to a HP EVA 4400 the other is suggesting a MSA 2012fc.

The EVA 4400 is the more expensive option and I'm just wondering if there is any real benefit going with it.

The SAN's have both been specced with ample capacity for future growth, so is there anything the EVA provides over the MSA that is a real deal breaker?

Shoei · 4 Jun 2009 at 11:42

If you can afford it, go with the EVA4400. We looked at putting in a EVA but with the price of the disks and the support pack for the disks, the cost was a bit prohibitive. Think we are going with the MSA solution, which is a pity.

We have a client who uses 5 EVA4400's for ensuring database availability, plus they are on split sites.

iaind · 4 Jun 2009 at 12:01

The MSA is very poorly regarded on the vmware communities - lots of problems with it...

brainchylde · 5 Jun 2009 at 17:28

We just bought an Equallogic solution. Slightly more servers than you (~35) and more disk space, but the equallogic solution has some neat things built in. Snapshots, DR etc. You will find yourself paying extra for these features in the HP products.

Vanilla · 5 Jun 2009 at 17:59

See some comments here about the EVA. You can do better for your money.

If you don't have any option go fo the EVA over the MSA.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17886343&highlight=EVA

Zaf · 6 Jun 2009 at 13:09

We have a ESX cluster (4x servers) with our datastores on a EMC. They just released a new range that will take solid disk drives, so no need to worry about loads of spindles etc

http://uk.emc.com/products/detail/hardware/clariion-cx4-model-120.htm

topher · 6 Jun 2009 at 14:18

Netapp FAS2050 very nice bit of kit, data Deduplication so saves disk space. cifs iscsi nfs

harman · 8 Jun 2009 at 09:22

My company have had a look and we're planning to get a Dell MD3000i this summer.

morfmedia · 8 Jun 2009 at 19:31

I've implemented 2 ESX servers with iSCSI shared storage using IBM DS3300, throughput was quite reasonable considering the gigabit networking VS FC.

Worth a look, failing that I've implemented ESX with AMS 2100 storage arrays and ESX. Sadly not used the HP kit, tried to get an MSA2000 on demo last year but they weren't gonna ship in time for my project. Let us know how you get on.

whitecrook · 8 Jun 2009 at 22:40

harman said:
My company have had a look and we're planning to get a Dell MD3000i this summer.

consider this very carefully. We have 2x MD300 (not i) and they are absolute dogs. The i should be better but tbh I woulnd steer clear. our old U320 Powervault performs better.

harman · 9 Jun 2009 at 07:52

nice one, thanks for letting me know whitecrook. I'll be having a look at this, it's not set in stone yet which version we'll be getting.

whitecrook · 9 Jun 2009 at 10:30

Yeah. thousands of tales of woe on the internet about them... Plus it's really just a out of date rebranded IBM unit which in it's time wasn't that great either...

m4cc45 · 9 Jun 2009 at 19:52

EVA 4400 is very good. Very easy to work with as well. If you can spare the cash the EVA is a much better choice and will be upgradable as well for the future.

M.

zetec452 · 9 Jun 2009 at 22:15

If FC a deal breaker? If not maybe iSCSI boxes would do the trick. Something like LeftHandnetworks may fit the bill.

brainchylde · 9 Jun 2009 at 23:11

JonRohan said:
If FC a deal breaker? If not maybe iSCSI boxes would do the trick. Something like LeftHandnetworks may fit the bill.

I definitely agree on the iSCSI stuff. In reality, most people don't need FC. Unless you have transaction/host intensive operations it's not really a requirement, imo.