×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
The cost difference between a SAN and non-SAN setup for this is
$1,619.
Still think a SAN is overkill?
I'd be surprised by that, but anything possible. Problem is, that's
likely more of a NAS solution that a real SAN. Sure, it may be "real" in
the sense of iSCSI or something, but let's say it's likely not
industrial strength. Also, if it's iSCSI are you accounting for a second
gigabit network for the storage? Really don't want storage packets
flying around on the same network as normal end-user traffic, both from
a performance point of view and from a monitoring/analysis point of
view. Also, I assume you'll be running Windows 2008? If not, make sure
that the people that do the SAN setup know how to setup the LUNs
correctly to account for the SAN offsets. If don't incorrectly this can
effectively double your IO costs.
As Lukas points out, where are the DCs in this model? I would also
question why 1 & 2 can't be combined into one server, I don't see the
file/print requirements of 25 people as needing their own server, of
course YMMV.
And are you looking at HyperV or VMWare?
-Walden
midrange.com
