RE: Storage strategies -- MIDRANGE-L

The System i can't access iSCSI SANs (Initiator) but it can be an iSCSI
SAN for IXA Servers (Target).

You'll need to go with more expensive SAN solutions if you want to
attach your System i into it, and even then I don't know if that
approach makes sense. I've heard from multiple IBMers that SAN support
is half-hearted at best, and you might run into issues.

You specified lots of things, but not your budget, number of servers,
number of users etc. to give any solid advice. And it might make sense
to talk with some IT service people in your region that can help you
better than a mailing list (as they might need to know several sensitive
numbers, etc.).

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pete Helgren
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 7:16 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Storage strategies

John mentioned in the RAID Cache Battery Source thread about NAS and
iSCSI and the System i. I am facing some decisions about storage and
server consolidation in the near future (maybe 6 months or so) and I am
trying to plot a strategy that will try to kill as many birds with one
stone as possible.

I want to lead with the storage first because that is where I have the
most pain. I have 2TB of RAID 5 storage scattered over 3 or 4
Wintel/Linux servers, plus 220 Gb of storage on System i / iSeries (520
and 270). We have been adding disks to each of the servers over time
and have had to swap tape drives for some with greater capacity over
time and I am frankly getting tired of individual system upgrades. We
need to consolidate and rationalize the approach.

I know enough about SAN, NAS and iSCSI to be dangerous so what I am
working with is purely conceptual. I have no experience (yet) with this

stuff.

What I envision is an iSCSI storage system to start. I have one server
that I am just about to replace (rack mounted), and I could use iSCSI as

the storage solution for it. What I'd like to do is continue to add
drives to the iSCSI storage device as I retire each server. Some
servers will be virtualized and some will be metal to metal replacements

but in all cases I would rather add disks to the iSCSI device and then
use iSCSI interfaces in each server rather than add disks to the
servers. I may even look at a blade server rather than rack mount
servers because of the inevitability of a System i blade offering.

Does this approach make sense, particularly with a System i in the mix?

And, that System i is due for replacement late next summer/early fall (I

know the dear old 270 won't be able to play) I recall reading that the
System i can be an iSCSI target but not an initiator (true?). The whole
approach is to have a single storage device where the disks are
virtualized for use by the servers (both metal and virtualized). Then a

single tape backup strategy and a single blade center hosting the
servers. That gets me back to a simplified hardware/storage/backup
strategy.

Where are the gotcha's if this is feasible?

Pete