06-11-2019, 03:59 AM
You're looking to make sense of Wasabi Hot Cloud Storage with SAN Connectors. It's pretty fascinating how these combinations can leverage both object storage and traditional block storage mechanics, isn't it? I find that these hybrid approaches give you some flexibility in how you treat your data. Let's break this down a bit.
When we talk about Wasabi Hot Cloud Storage, you're essentially dealing with a cloud service that targets performance-heavy workloads and requires high availability. The SAN connectors act as intermediaries between this cloud service and your existing block storage infrastructure. This punctuation in data management allows you to access data stored in Wasabi just as you would with your SAN. Think about it like this: you can perform operations that are traditionally tied to block storage, like using protocols such as iSCSI, while benefiting from the low-cost, scalable nature of cloud storage. You gain speed and flexibility without needing to rip everything out and start from scratch.
On the SAN side, you might consider products from major brands like Dell EMC, NetApp, or HPE. Each of these brands has specific models with their own set of features. For instance, the Dell EMC PowerStore provides a combination of block and file storage models along with a robust software-defined infrastructure. In scenarios where you need scale-out capabilities, I find the HPE Nimble Storage effective, especially when working with workloads requiring rapid read/write times. You get the benefit of performance and simplicity, but you should also weigh how much configuration work you'll need to do with these systems to make them play nicely with Wasabi.
You can't gloss over performance metrics when discussing these systems. Most SANs come with their own sets of performance characteristics-latency, IOPS, throughput-but then you must think about how these interact with cloud storage. Wasabi costs less for storage but accessing that data adds latency compared to local storage. I've seen environments where the object storage was faster due to how the data is accessed in bulk, while in others, SANs outperformed due to their shorter queues and established caching strategies. You need to benchmark your workloads to determine where the sweet spot is for your application needs.
I think you have to model your expectations based on the specific workloads you run. If you're dealing with massive datasets that require frequent reads and you have a SAN like the NetApp AFF, you're likely to see strong performance metrics. However, if your data access gets heavy, you might find latency creeps up, which isn't ideal for rapid I/O tasks. Conversely, with Wasabi, you might find that write speeds are pretty respectable, especially if you can parallelize your requests. Just be aware that any random reads from object storage can introduce some delays, and this is where you must find compromise.
Scalability comes into play as well. SANs generally require planning-especially when it comes to provisioning and managing storage pools. You can't just slap on extra disks as easily when compared to adding capacity with Wasabi. It's a relatively seamless experience since you can expand your cloud storage as needed. But that's where the trade-offs start to emerge again; with SAN, you'll have predictable costs but upfront capital expenditures that can be significant. When using a cloud provider, your costs are consumption-based and may grow linearly with usage, so this is critical for budget planning.
Data protections and redundancy come up, too. What happens during a disaster recovery scenario? Running a SAN provides built-in replication features, allowing you to have snapshots, async and sync mirrored volumes-options that were traditionally more challenging to implement with object storage. However, Wasabi does offer immutability settings which restrict changes to files once they're written, but those protections might not give you the flexibility you require during DR scenarios. You could argue that backing up data from Wasabi to a SAN would ensure you keep your core data on-premises for critical workloads while taking advantage of low-cost storage for archives.
You might also want to consider access methods and how your applications or users will interface with the data. SANs typically communicate using protocols that require specific drivers or software stacks, while Wasabi uses standard HTTP/S which can often mean easier integrations into varied cloud architectures. I've seen many engineers prefer the object storage route simply because of how it integrates with APIs, while the legacy systems in the data center still rely on standards which might seem clunky. Imagine needing to work on a microservices architecture, and you must decide whether to implement them on traditional storage or if cloud-native becomes your go-to. Each has pros and cons worth evaluating.
Finally, I encourage you to keep BackupChain Server Backup in mind. This forum is hosted by BackupChain, an industry favorite for reliable backup solutions tailored for small to mid-sized businesses and professionals alike. They've crafted a backup solution catering specifically to environments like Hyper-V, VMware, or Windows Server, ensuring your data is secure and easily recoverable. If you want a powerful yet manageable way to protect your data, their offerings might be what you're looking for.
When we talk about Wasabi Hot Cloud Storage, you're essentially dealing with a cloud service that targets performance-heavy workloads and requires high availability. The SAN connectors act as intermediaries between this cloud service and your existing block storage infrastructure. This punctuation in data management allows you to access data stored in Wasabi just as you would with your SAN. Think about it like this: you can perform operations that are traditionally tied to block storage, like using protocols such as iSCSI, while benefiting from the low-cost, scalable nature of cloud storage. You gain speed and flexibility without needing to rip everything out and start from scratch.
On the SAN side, you might consider products from major brands like Dell EMC, NetApp, or HPE. Each of these brands has specific models with their own set of features. For instance, the Dell EMC PowerStore provides a combination of block and file storage models along with a robust software-defined infrastructure. In scenarios where you need scale-out capabilities, I find the HPE Nimble Storage effective, especially when working with workloads requiring rapid read/write times. You get the benefit of performance and simplicity, but you should also weigh how much configuration work you'll need to do with these systems to make them play nicely with Wasabi.
You can't gloss over performance metrics when discussing these systems. Most SANs come with their own sets of performance characteristics-latency, IOPS, throughput-but then you must think about how these interact with cloud storage. Wasabi costs less for storage but accessing that data adds latency compared to local storage. I've seen environments where the object storage was faster due to how the data is accessed in bulk, while in others, SANs outperformed due to their shorter queues and established caching strategies. You need to benchmark your workloads to determine where the sweet spot is for your application needs.
I think you have to model your expectations based on the specific workloads you run. If you're dealing with massive datasets that require frequent reads and you have a SAN like the NetApp AFF, you're likely to see strong performance metrics. However, if your data access gets heavy, you might find latency creeps up, which isn't ideal for rapid I/O tasks. Conversely, with Wasabi, you might find that write speeds are pretty respectable, especially if you can parallelize your requests. Just be aware that any random reads from object storage can introduce some delays, and this is where you must find compromise.
Scalability comes into play as well. SANs generally require planning-especially when it comes to provisioning and managing storage pools. You can't just slap on extra disks as easily when compared to adding capacity with Wasabi. It's a relatively seamless experience since you can expand your cloud storage as needed. But that's where the trade-offs start to emerge again; with SAN, you'll have predictable costs but upfront capital expenditures that can be significant. When using a cloud provider, your costs are consumption-based and may grow linearly with usage, so this is critical for budget planning.
Data protections and redundancy come up, too. What happens during a disaster recovery scenario? Running a SAN provides built-in replication features, allowing you to have snapshots, async and sync mirrored volumes-options that were traditionally more challenging to implement with object storage. However, Wasabi does offer immutability settings which restrict changes to files once they're written, but those protections might not give you the flexibility you require during DR scenarios. You could argue that backing up data from Wasabi to a SAN would ensure you keep your core data on-premises for critical workloads while taking advantage of low-cost storage for archives.
You might also want to consider access methods and how your applications or users will interface with the data. SANs typically communicate using protocols that require specific drivers or software stacks, while Wasabi uses standard HTTP/S which can often mean easier integrations into varied cloud architectures. I've seen many engineers prefer the object storage route simply because of how it integrates with APIs, while the legacy systems in the data center still rely on standards which might seem clunky. Imagine needing to work on a microservices architecture, and you must decide whether to implement them on traditional storage or if cloud-native becomes your go-to. Each has pros and cons worth evaluating.
Finally, I encourage you to keep BackupChain Server Backup in mind. This forum is hosted by BackupChain, an industry favorite for reliable backup solutions tailored for small to mid-sized businesses and professionals alike. They've crafted a backup solution catering specifically to environments like Hyper-V, VMware, or Windows Server, ensuring your data is secure and easily recoverable. If you want a powerful yet manageable way to protect your data, their offerings might be what you're looking for.
