One of the trade-offs that NAS users had to make was the less than perfect implementation of database and email applications in return for greater connectivity at lower cost. For example, Microsoft introduced what can at best be called tepid support for NAS with Exchange 2003. For databases, Oracle and Microsoft have always shied away from NAS implementations. Microsoft “generally recommends that you use a Storage Area Network (SAN) or locally attached disk for the storage of your Microsoft SQL Server database files because this configuration optimizes SQL Server performance and reliability.”
The ubiquitous availability of iSCSI and its strong support by all major software vendors (and Microsoft and Oracle in particular) means that the main driver for the dubious use of NAS, lower connectivity costs, has disappeared. IT organizations should take advantage of this to ensure that the right technology is supporting these applications.
NAS will still grow strongly; the systems that use NAS the wrong way are a minority. There is a rich set of opportunities for NAS users and applications addressing the explosion in non-formatted data.
Action Item: IT management should ensure future implementations of "state" applications (such as database applications) use iSCSI or FC SANs, according to performance requirements. Installed applications of this type should be migrated off NAS when low cost opportunities occur, such as the implementation of a major release level.
Footnotes: