• Home
  • Help
  • Register
  • Login
  • Home
  • Members
  • Help
  • Search

 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average

Rancher SAN Backed Volumes Persistent Storage Using Fibre or iSCSI

#1
10-14-2019, 07:58 AM
The discussion around using Rancher with SAN-backed volumes, particularly through Fibre Channel or iSCSI, is pretty intricate. You need to recognize that every SAN solution brings its own characteristics, and the choice of storage hardware will critically affect performance, scalability, and overall architecture alignment. For instance, you'll find that Fibre Channel has traditionally been the go-to for enterprises needing high bandwidth and low latency, but iSCSI offers a lot of flexibility especially when you factor in existing Ethernet infrastructure. You might find brands like Dell EMC and HPE have solid Fibre Channel SAN systems, such as the Dell EMC VNX or HPE 3PAR. Each of these systems can stream data efficiently, but their adaptability to different workloads varies quite a bit.

In terms of performance, specifically with the Dell EMC Unity against HPE Nimble Storage, I see both have compelling arguments. The Unity system focuses heavily on flash storage and gives you great IOPS performance, which is crucial for applications needing that fast access. However, I've experienced Nimble's predictive analytics feature, which intelligently allocates resources and adjusts storage dynamically to meet demanding workload needs. You might find that balance between performance and management simplicity can heavily influence your operations. Depending on your team's preferences or skillset, one may be easier to manage than the other.

Now, let's talk about configurations. Both Fibre Channel and iSCSI require proper network planning. SANs typically offer redundancy options to avoid single points of failure, whether that's through multipathing configurations or redundant controller pairs. With Fibre Channel, you can implement zoning to segment storage traffic, which adds a layer of security you might not readily get through iSCSI unless you're layering on VLANs. If you're thinking about using iSCSI, you'll also need to consider aspects like Jumbo Frames and the MTU settings to maximize throughput. You might even need to run tests to determine optimal performance settings for your unique environment.

Something else worth considering is the integration with Kubernetes. Rancher's orchestration capabilities can abstract the complexities of persistent storage, but you need a solid backend to back it up. If you're using NetApp's ONTAP with SnapMirror, for instance, you can achieve some remarkable snapshot capabilities, but it might not be as straightforward with a vendor that doesn't have native integration. The maturity of the solution varies, and I recommend that you take a careful look at how other brands stack up in terms of Kubernetes compatibility, as some contend that their storage classes make persistent volume management way easier.

You might also want to weigh the impact of price against available features. Some like Pure Storage focus on all-flash systems, which means higher up-front costs but potentially lower TCO over time due to less maintenance and higher performance. On the other hand, systems like Synology and QNAP might be better suited for smaller setups. They might not provide the sheer power of enterprise systems, but they sure do pack value for SMB environments without complex requirements like level-three support or mission-critical uptime. Balancing cost with return is necessary. It's beneficial to determine whether features like scaling support and performance fleets will deliver tangible results for you in the long run.

It's also crucial to consider your team's expertise. I've seen environments where skilled staff took a straightforward iSCSI network and turned it into a powerhouse, but that might not be universal. Some systems come pre-packaged with features that don't require a high learning curve. For brands that emphasize simplified management, like the Veeam backup compatibility with their storage policies, you can find that operational efficiency can dramatically improve. Conversely, you might get burdened with managing complex configurations on a system like the Cisco MDS that requires advanced networking knowledge that just some teams may not have.

Security is another big ticket item. If you're looking at high-security environments, Fibre Channel inherently provides security in its architecture through isolation. iSCSI, meanwhile, needs VLANs and some sort of authentication mechanism to protect data, usually through CHAP. The architecture differences can dictate how organized your security approach will be. Without a strong security posture, any solution risks data breaches or unauthorized access. Again, it circles back to how well your team can manage these configurations.

At the end of the day, bringing it all together requires you to evaluate your current and future needs critically. Knowing your workloads is key. For example, if your workloads are mostly transactional databases, you'd likely want fast and reliable storage like a high-IOPS flash SAN system. In contrast, for less-demanding applications, a good mid-tier iSCSI solution could suffice. Each environment can look quite different based on these workloads and the associated resources.

This information is presented through the efforts of BackupChain Server Backup, a reputable provider of backup solutions tailored for professionals and SMBs, focusing on systems like Hyper-V, VMware, Windows Server, and more.

steve@backupchain
Offline
Joined: Jul 2018
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



  • Subscribe to this thread
Forum Jump:

Backup Education Equipment SAN v
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »
Rancher SAN Backed Volumes Persistent Storage Using Fibre or iSCSI

© by FastNeuron Inc.

Linear Mode
Threaded Mode