iSCSI or SMB using SBS 2003
|
Prev: 2 NIC cards
Next: Router for SBS2008
From: Andy Roxburgh on 1 Mar 2010 10:37 Hi, I need some advice. I've got a Thecus N8800Pro Storage Applicance, and a Windows SBS 2003 Server. I want to hold my important business files on the applicance so that it can be accessed by the other users of the network. I tried this by connecting the applicance to the SBS Server via iSCSI, and then sharing the folders. It worked well, but if the server goes down for whatever reason then we lose access to these files. So I tried putting the N8800Pro into SMB mode, and sharing the folders directly from the applicance (bypassing the SBS server). However, now access to the files is really slow, which I don't really understand - I mean I know iSCSI is faster than SMB, but with the SBS Server removed from the data path it should be around the same speed if not quicker surely? After all the sharing at between the SBS and the users' desktops is done by SMB isn't it? So I don't really understand that. Firstly - why would that be? Secondly - can I use two iSCSI initiators on different servers to access an iSCSI target? So I could, for instance, have a server image of SBS 2003 standing by, and spin it up when my usual SBS 2003 server goes down, and still have fast access to the data. Is this possible? What do other people do about server redundancy and data redundancy with SBS? Any help appreciated. Andy
From: Cliff Galiher - MVP on 1 Mar 2010 12:02 To answer your first question, I can only speculate, but the difference between the appliance being in SMB mode vs iSCSI mode is authentication. My guess is that the appliance is just not very good at authenticating access, which SMB would require, so you see a significant performance drop. Access is only as good as the software implementing it, after all. iSCSI is leaving a lot more negotiation up to SBS, which is built specifically for such things. As for your second question, the short answer is that SBS targets small businesses and, as such, you are usually talking about a budget where full high-availability is simply prohibitively expensive. As such, SBS wasn't really built for such use. With that said, a good server with dual power supplies, a good disk subsystem with RAID, and a good warranty (many top tier companies will overnight a defective part) and you don't *have* significant downtime with a server for this to be an issue. DAS is perfectly acceptable in most instances. If your business truly cannot afford any downtime then SBS is probably not the right product...even if you are technically in the user/computer limits of the product. -Cliff "Andy Roxburgh" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:OpdrCUVuKHA.732(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Hi, I need some advice. > > I've got a Thecus N8800Pro Storage Applicance, and a Windows SBS 2003 > Server. I want to hold my important business files on the applicance so > that it can be accessed by the other users of the network. > > I tried this by connecting the applicance to the SBS Server via iSCSI, and > then sharing the folders. It worked well, but if the server goes down for > whatever reason then we lose access to these files. > > So I tried putting the N8800Pro into SMB mode, and sharing the folders > directly from the applicance (bypassing the SBS server). However, now > access to the files is really slow, which I don't really understand - I > mean I know iSCSI is faster than SMB, but with the SBS Server removed from > the data path it should be around the same speed if not quicker surely? > After all the sharing at between the SBS and the users' desktops is done > by SMB isn't it? > > So I don't really understand that. > > Firstly - why would that be? > Secondly - can I use two iSCSI initiators on different servers to access > an iSCSI target? So I could, for instance, have a server image of SBS 2003 > standing by, and spin it up when my usual SBS 2003 server goes down, and > still have fast access to the data. Is this possible? What do other people > do about server redundancy and data redundancy with SBS? > > Any help appreciated. > > Andy > > >
From: Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP] on 1 Mar 2010 12:26 Hi Andy: What he said. I don't very often do this, for/to Cliff or anyone else, but I agree. I have supported SBS since the very first version, and have *never* lost an SBS server for more than about 3 hours. "It just works", to coin a phrase, and if installed on quality hardware with very good power protection - meaning a quality UPS such as the APC oro Eaton line in the 1500 VA true sine wave class or better, you should not have significant downtime. As for "spinning up" the SBS on another box, you will need either a separate license or SA (software assurance) for the existing license to validate such, be it a "cold spare" or some other term for that. - Larry Please post the resolution to your issue so others may benefit - Get Your SBS Health Check at www.sbsbpa.com > To answer your first question, I can only speculate, but the > difference between the appliance being in SMB mode vs iSCSI mode is > authentication. My guess is that the appliance is just not very good > at authenticating access, which SMB would require, so you see a > significant performance drop. Access is only as good as the software > implementing it, after all. iSCSI is leaving a lot more negotiation > up to SBS, which is built specifically for such things. > > As for your second question, the short answer is that SBS targets > small businesses and, as such, you are usually talking about a budget > where full high-availability is simply prohibitively expensive. As > such, SBS wasn't really built for such use. With that said, a good > server with dual power supplies, a good disk subsystem with RAID, and > a good warranty (many top tier companies will overnight a defective > part) and you don't *have* significant downtime with a server for this > to be an issue. DAS is perfectly acceptable in most instances. If > your business truly cannot afford any downtime then SBS is probably > not the right product...even if you are technically in the > user/computer limits of the product. > > -Cliff > > "Andy Roxburgh" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:OpdrCUVuKHA.732(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> Hi, I need some advice. >> >> I've got a Thecus N8800Pro Storage Applicance, and a Windows SBS 2003 >> Server. I want to hold my important business files on the applicance >> so that it can be accessed by the other users of the network. >> >> I tried this by connecting the applicance to the SBS Server via >> iSCSI, and then sharing the folders. It worked well, but if the >> server goes down for whatever reason then we lose access to these >> files. >> >> So I tried putting the N8800Pro into SMB mode, and sharing the >> folders directly from the applicance (bypassing the SBS server). >> However, now access to the files is really slow, which I don't really >> understand - I mean I know iSCSI is faster than SMB, but with the SBS >> Server removed from the data path it should be around the same speed >> if not quicker surely? After all the sharing at between the SBS and >> the users' desktops is done by SMB isn't it? >> >> So I don't really understand that. >> >> Firstly - why would that be? >> Secondly - can I use two iSCSI initiators on different servers to >> access >> an iSCSI target? So I could, for instance, have a server image of SBS >> 2003 >> standing by, and spin it up when my usual SBS 2003 server goes down, >> and >> still have fast access to the data. Is this possible? What do other >> people >> do about server redundancy and data redundancy with SBS? >> Any help appreciated. >> >> Andy >>
From: Andy Roxburgh on 3 Mar 2010 07:06 Hi Larry and Cliff - thanks for your replies, very interesting. Although we're a small business (30 ish people) our IT load has become pretty high in recent months, to the point where the SBS server is being used about 18 hours a day, and for the other 6 hours it's doing backups. Firstly there's just no time to take it down for maintenance any more - windows update reboots, hardware configs etc. And secondly, though I've never had a significant problem with SBS boxes (the worst were repeated BSODs due to a faulty SCSI card, and a double drive failure on a RAID 5), it's dawning on me how much we rely on a single SBS box, and I'm getting questions about high availability. So if I were to keep an image of our current SBS server, to be spun up in the event of a failure, I'd need a separate licence for that? I didn't realise that. Perhaps I just need to face the fact that we've outgrown SBS.... Andy "Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP]" <lstruckmeyer(a)mis-wizards.com> wrote in message news:4e683515b66c8cc87518b19c766(a)news.microsoft.com... > Hi Andy: > > What he said. > > I don't very often do this, for/to Cliff or anyone else, but I agree. I > have supported SBS since the very first version, and have *never* lost an > SBS server for more than about 3 hours. "It just works", to coin a > phrase, and if installed on quality hardware with very good power > protection - meaning a quality UPS such as the APC oro Eaton line in the > 1500 VA true sine wave class or better, you should not have significant > downtime. > > As for "spinning up" the SBS on another box, you will need either a > separate license or SA (software assurance) for the existing license to > validate such, be it a "cold spare" or some other term for that. > > - > Larry > Please post the resolution to your > issue so others may benefit > - > Get Your SBS Health Check at > www.sbsbpa.com > > >> To answer your first question, I can only speculate, but the >> difference between the appliance being in SMB mode vs iSCSI mode is >> authentication. My guess is that the appliance is just not very good >> at authenticating access, which SMB would require, so you see a >> significant performance drop. Access is only as good as the software >> implementing it, after all. iSCSI is leaving a lot more negotiation >> up to SBS, which is built specifically for such things. >> >> As for your second question, the short answer is that SBS targets >> small businesses and, as such, you are usually talking about a budget >> where full high-availability is simply prohibitively expensive. As >> such, SBS wasn't really built for such use. With that said, a good >> server with dual power supplies, a good disk subsystem with RAID, and >> a good warranty (many top tier companies will overnight a defective >> part) and you don't *have* significant downtime with a server for this >> to be an issue. DAS is perfectly acceptable in most instances. If >> your business truly cannot afford any downtime then SBS is probably >> not the right product...even if you are technically in the >> user/computer limits of the product. >> >> -Cliff >> >> "Andy Roxburgh" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:OpdrCUVuKHA.732(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >>> Hi, I need some advice. >>> >>> I've got a Thecus N8800Pro Storage Applicance, and a Windows SBS 2003 >>> Server. I want to hold my important business files on the applicance >>> so that it can be accessed by the other users of the network. >>> >>> I tried this by connecting the applicance to the SBS Server via >>> iSCSI, and then sharing the folders. It worked well, but if the >>> server goes down for whatever reason then we lose access to these >>> files. >>> >>> So I tried putting the N8800Pro into SMB mode, and sharing the >>> folders directly from the applicance (bypassing the SBS server). >>> However, now access to the files is really slow, which I don't really >>> understand - I mean I know iSCSI is faster than SMB, but with the SBS >>> Server removed from the data path it should be around the same speed >>> if not quicker surely? After all the sharing at between the SBS and >>> the users' desktops is done by SMB isn't it? >>> >>> So I don't really understand that. >>> >>> Firstly - why would that be? >>> Secondly - can I use two iSCSI initiators on different servers to >>> access >>> an iSCSI target? So I could, for instance, have a server image of SBS >>> 2003 >>> standing by, and spin it up when my usual SBS 2003 server goes down, >>> and >>> still have fast access to the data. Is this possible? What do other >>> people >>> do about server redundancy and data redundancy with SBS? >>> Any help appreciated. >>> >>> Andy >>> > >
From: Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP] on 3 Mar 2010 07:47
Hi Andy: I feel your pain. But I am not sure that moving off of SBS will solve the issues you enumerate. Any server, Windows or others, will have maintenance. Updates and Patching are a fact of life. Non SBS implies more boxes. More boxes implies more maintenance. More maintenance implies more work for the maintainer. You might see where I am going with this. btw, SBS backup, particularly SBS 2008, will quite happily run during working hours. Backup now uses shadwo copies to make and store the backup, so you can schedule backups whenever you wish. In SBS 2008 many backup as often as every hour. That might open your maintenance window a bit. btw #2... a second license for SBS, (or SA), will still be less expensive than multiple servers with multiple copies of Server and more AV and, and, and, and. Besides which SA is a good thing in any case as it keeps you current and allows you to spread your payments. - Larry Please post the resolution to your issue so others may benefit - Get Your SBS Health Check at www.sbsbpa.com > Hi Larry and Cliff - thanks for your replies, very interesting. > > Although we're a small business (30 ish people) our IT load has become > pretty high in recent months, to the point where the SBS server is > being used about 18 hours a day, and for the other 6 hours it's doing > backups. > > Firstly there's just no time to take it down for maintenance any more > - windows update reboots, hardware configs etc. > > And secondly, though I've never had a significant problem with SBS > boxes (the worst were repeated BSODs due to a faulty SCSI card, and a > double drive failure on a RAID 5), it's dawning on me how much we rely > on a single SBS box, and I'm getting questions about high > availability. > > So if I were to keep an image of our current SBS server, to be spun up > in the event of a failure, I'd need a separate licence for that? I > didn't realise that. > > Perhaps I just need to face the fact that we've outgrown SBS.... > > Andy > > "Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP]" <lstruckmeyer(a)mis-wizards.com> wrote in > message news:4e683515b66c8cc87518b19c766(a)news.microsoft.com... > >> Hi Andy: >> >> What he said. >> >> I don't very often do this, for/to Cliff or anyone else, but I agree. >> I have supported SBS since the very first version, and have *never* >> lost an SBS server for more than about 3 hours. "It just works", to >> coin a phrase, and if installed on quality hardware with very good >> power protection - meaning a quality UPS such as the APC oro Eaton >> line in the 1500 VA true sine wave class or better, you should not >> have significant downtime. >> >> As for "spinning up" the SBS on another box, you will need either a >> separate license or SA (software assurance) for the existing license >> to validate such, be it a "cold spare" or some other term for that. >> >> - >> Larry >> Please post the resolution to your >> issue so others may benefit >> - >> Get Your SBS Health Check at >> www.sbsbpa.com >>> To answer your first question, I can only speculate, but the >>> difference between the appliance being in SMB mode vs iSCSI mode is >>> authentication. My guess is that the appliance is just not very >>> good at authenticating access, which SMB would require, so you see a >>> significant performance drop. Access is only as good as the >>> software implementing it, after all. iSCSI is leaving a lot more >>> negotiation up to SBS, which is built specifically for such things. >>> >>> As for your second question, the short answer is that SBS targets >>> small businesses and, as such, you are usually talking about a >>> budget where full high-availability is simply prohibitively >>> expensive. As such, SBS wasn't really built for such use. With >>> that said, a good server with dual power supplies, a good disk >>> subsystem with RAID, and a good warranty (many top tier companies >>> will overnight a defective part) and you don't *have* significant >>> downtime with a server for this to be an issue. DAS is perfectly >>> acceptable in most instances. If your business truly cannot afford >>> any downtime then SBS is probably not the right product...even if >>> you are technically in the user/computer limits of the product. >>> >>> -Cliff >>> >>> "Andy Roxburgh" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:OpdrCUVuKHA.732(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> >>>> Hi, I need some advice. >>>> >>>> I've got a Thecus N8800Pro Storage Applicance, and a Windows SBS >>>> 2003 Server. I want to hold my important business files on the >>>> applicance so that it can be accessed by the other users of the >>>> network. >>>> >>>> I tried this by connecting the applicance to the SBS Server via >>>> iSCSI, and then sharing the folders. It worked well, but if the >>>> server goes down for whatever reason then we lose access to these >>>> files. >>>> >>>> So I tried putting the N8800Pro into SMB mode, and sharing the >>>> folders directly from the applicance (bypassing the SBS server). >>>> However, now access to the files is really slow, which I don't >>>> really understand - I mean I know iSCSI is faster than SMB, but >>>> with the SBS Server removed from the data path it should be around >>>> the same speed if not quicker surely? After all the sharing at >>>> between the SBS and the users' desktops is done by SMB isn't it? >>>> >>>> So I don't really understand that. >>>> >>>> Firstly - why would that be? >>>> Secondly - can I use two iSCSI initiators on different servers to >>>> access >>>> an iSCSI target? So I could, for instance, have a server image of >>>> SBS >>>> 2003 >>>> standing by, and spin it up when my usual SBS 2003 server goes >>>> down, >>>> and >>>> still have fast access to the data. Is this possible? What do other >>>> people >>>> do about server redundancy and data redundancy with SBS? >>>> Any help appreciated. >>>> Andy >>>> |