Originating Author: David Floyer
A few years ago a flurry of TCO studies purportedly showed that NAS file-based systems were much cheaper to manage than SAN block-based systems. However, the research methodology was deeply flawed. When the type of application was added as a variable, the new research found what pragmatic storage practitioners have known all along, namely that for high write/ high locking rate applications block-based systems were more efficient, and that for applications with high connectivity and undemanding I/O requirements NAS was usually the better technology.
As discussed in the storage alert “The conundrum of NAS consolidation economics,” there is a strong business case to consolidate NAS, driven by the necessity to ensure compliance and protection of all data. However, as the workloads for NAS and SAN are very different, they should not be consolidated onto one platform.
Action Item: NAS consolidation should be tackled on different platforms and with different priorities than SAN. The simpler nature of NAS systems will sometimes lead to earlier implementation of new technologies (e.g., thin provisioning, automated classification) on NAS. IT departments should exploit these technologies on NAS early and learn from them where they can, so they can be implemented more effectively when they become mainstream on SAN based systems.
Footnotes: Related research: Managing geometric data growth in SANs