To an extent filer clusters are SAN's. I personally think NAS is superior to SANs architecturally, even if NAS's use SAN's.
One day we'll have a network for network traffic, another for disk traffic, another for backup traffic, another for montoring/maintenance traffic, and some bright spark will come along and say 'We could do all this with one proper network!' and I'll just shake my head and cry.
8)
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, mark wrote:
To an extent filer clusters are SAN's. I personally think NAS is superior to SANs architecturally, even if NAS's use SAN's.
I personally think that the distinction between NAS and SAN is artificial and protocol based. In the future I think that SANs will become closer to NASes and NASes closer to SANs eventually merging into one network. I think the distinction is just as artificial as dividing wireless, telco, and dataco. They're all merging now. "In the end there can be only one!" ;)
will come along and say 'We could do all this with one proper network!' and I'll just shake my head and cry.
I think that's where SANs are going. In my opinion they're a newer and more versatile technology. I think that the role of a NAc will eventually be pushed down to the disk drive. Intelligence is getting cheaper and cheaper, why not finally put it into the drive.
Tom
-
mds＠gbnet.net -
tkaczma＠gryf.net