I have to say I am at an almost 100 percent Windows shop, and to be honest, its getting off the Microsoft teat is a challenge. We are finally moving most windows file servers to Netapp.
We have a 3020 that has over 2000 users on 1 shelf of SATA 500GB disks with roaming profiles, home folders, etc on it and I have had ZERO complaints about performance (most of the users come in from remote sites so the WAN is the bottleneck, but most site have 10-100MB connectivity back in).
One thing to sell is the Windows boxes will not have to be patched as much as a windows server, the extra U space, power etc, you have to built in snaphots for rapid recovery, and the windows guys can just MMC to the filer and manage it like the near and dear Windows GUI we hold so closely.
I would take the 20% off, and not take snapshots. Just give the LUN, and if you have the luxioury, snapmirror the data to another filer. When the windows box fails, you can mount the snap on the other filer and save the day.
If they already paid for the CIF license, I would ask why they paid for that if they didn't want that functionality.
just my thoughts, Im not a Netapp sales guy, but maybe starting to sound like one...
________________________________
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com on behalf of Glenn Walker Sent: Sat 2/23/2008 5:41 PM To: Milazzo Giacomo; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: Suggestions and opinion need: LUN for file server and Snapshot
So, first thought is if this is the plan then it is a bad one and maybe they shouldn't even bother with a filer. Kinda like using an F1 car to commute to work: it'll get the job done, but it doesn't really make much sense.
Second thought is that they can use fractional reserves, or completely disable snapshots and rely on VSS and hope for the best. Snapmirror wouldn't care - it would just follow these rules from the source.
Honestly, with the lack of common sense shown by his IT partners, maybe local storage is the way to go...
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Milazzo Giacomo Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:01 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Suggestions and opinion need: LUN for file server and Snapshot
Hi toasters,
I've a customer who's planning to adopt a FAS2020 with a lot of SATA space to use it for Windows file servicing (user data, roaming profiles...) BUT, here's the "but" he has to map this space with a LUN to a new physical server running W2K3 because, the people who manage his infrastructure "want to see" a "real" Windows server...I've explained him that they can manage roughly all using the MMC but he said me that they want to "see" services, RDP and so on :-(
So the only way you know, is to create some LUN and assign as drive or mount point (anyway this could make easier data migration using maybe Windows DFS etc...)
But I would to focus your attention to the NetApp side of issue: snapshots... You know that a volume containing some LUN has to have at least a size double of the LUN, when you create it using Snapdrive the size is autocalculated answering "y" or "n" to that question "do you want to reserve..." I'm asking myself what sense could have to take snapshots of a LUN for a file server usage (not a db!) and after all, what's the sense to restore a volume, so that an entire LUN...so that an entire windows disk!!! Maybe with inconsistencies too...
Another question: I've never had the change to try it...can I use Microsoft VSS options to make a little bit of versioning on this disks coming from NetApp LUNs?
And now the big issue. This customer want to reply using Snapmirror on a remote 2020, so I need snapshots area, so do I have to create a volume DOUBLE of those LUNs size? Or in this case the default of 20% or less is enough?
As usual, many thanks!