Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1. #41
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,491

    Default

    Qnap is SATA only, I haven't really looked into a SaS based system because they tend to be out of the price range of my average client. Fiberchannel SANS are better of course, but significantly more money which again breaks the bank.

    I'm focused on the 25 user and less network, as they are my primary clientele. So that should put most of what I've said into perspective. HA and the like are all flexible terms when dealing with people that small.

    Starwind is a very nice system too, I've played with it. I just can't bring myself to cough up the money for the extra windows licenses. My kingdom for a version of starwind that ran on linux...
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  2. #42
    Untanglit
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Starwind is a very nice system too, I've played with it. I just can't bring myself to cough up the money for the extra windows licenses. My kingdom for a version of starwind that ran on linux...
    Have you looked at nexenta?
    http://www.nexenta.com/corp/
    it uses solaris stacks and zfs, it's pretty awsome.

  3. #43
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,491

    Default

    I think you just made my brain melt with another Untangle like thing I'm going to get sucked into for the next forever.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  4. #44
    Untanglit
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sky-knight View Post
    Qnap is SATA only, I haven't really looked into a SaS based system because they tend to be out of the price range of my average client. Fiberchannel SANS are better of course, but significantly more money which again breaks the bank.

    I'm focused on the 25 user and less network, as they are my primary clientele. So that should put most of what I've said into perspective. HA and the like are all flexible terms when dealing with people that small.

    Starwind is a very nice system too, I've played with it. I just can't bring myself to cough up the money for the extra windows licenses. My kingdom for a version of starwind that ran on linux...
    From what I've seen fibrechannel is really showing it's age. Iscsi on 10gb and infiniband seem to be where it's going. A 10gb iscsi box proprietary is 60k and up. A build your own with sas or solid state is pretty hard to beat at the higher level.

    It's true you can look at cutting costs as much as possible on the low end. But my general feeling is that for a little bit more money, you can give small businesses enterprise tech. That's why I'm interested in opensource projects like this in general. It's the ability to bring the enterprise into the small business that make them shine. And that's why it's disturbing when you can't implement them, effectively.

    Cost cutting is really kind an interesting debate. A couple thousand here or there means a lot in these build your own deployments. It might make you win or lose a bid. But the comparisions are never apples to apples. In general when you win a project it's not about comparing costs, but highlighting what you can do better. Everyone is trying to cut corners to get the leaste cost. At the end of the day, they have to support it. They have to deal with the users if they say it's slow.

    In general I would rather have one bad ass well engineered san, than two that aren't going to meet my performance criteria, and don't allow for adequate growth. I wouldn't want to be comparing a san I build to qnap, when I can be comparing it to a emc or a netapp.

    These are systems you are going to have to support for years, longer term if they don't have to rip out everything in 3 years, they will be saving money.

    The reason I love virtulization the most is that I can tell a costumer they won't have to spend any more money on server hardware for the foreseeable future. Next week if they come to me and ask for a new server, I roll out a template, and have it done in no time.

  5. #45
    Untanglit
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sky-knight View Post
    I think you just made my brain melt with another Untangle like thing I'm going to get sucked into for the next forever.
    AHAHA! My evil plan has worked.

  6. #46
    Untangle Ninja YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dell4242 View Post

    To be honest I'd love to recommend your product The features are great but not having ipsec support means I can't implement it anywhere. I think it's a cop out to say you are only going for small businesses. Small businesses need these features.
    Nobody related IPSec to not being for SMBs...I actually agreed that having IPSec support in Untangle would be good, as I mentioned..for a couple of years here I've been supporting the voices here asking for IPSec. I have plenty of clients that I'd sell Untangle to..at their main office, but they have a WAN with existing hardware that uses IPSec for router to router tunnels. What I said wasn't needed for SMBs is HA. That's more of an enterprise feature. SMB is typically <100 node networks. Be they single site, or WAN. HA is not prevalent in SMB. Usually the most I see for "backup/failure" of a router at an SMB is their old router laying around for backup. Typical decent SMB setups were a PIX501 or PIX505, or Sonicwall SOHO3 or TZ, etc. See high avail with those? And I have seen Cisco fail, or Junipers, or Sonicwalls, and replace them.

  7. #47
    Untanglit
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat View Post
    Nobody related IPSec to not being for SMBs...I actually agreed that having IPSec support in Untangle would be good, as I mentioned..for a couple of years here I've been supporting the voices here asking for IPSec. I have plenty of clients that I'd sell Untangle to..at their main office, but they have a WAN with existing hardware that uses IPSec for router to router tunnels. What I said wasn't needed for SMBs is HA. That's more of an enterprise feature. SMB is typically <100 node networks. Be they single site, or WAN. HA is not prevalent in SMB. Usually the most I see for "backup/failure" of a router at an SMB is their old router laying around for backup. Typical decent SMB setups were a PIX501 or PIX505, or Sonicwall SOHO3 or TZ, etc. See high avail with those? And I have seen Cisco fail, or Junipers, or Sonicwalls, and replace them.
    THe pix line has been discontinued for a number of years. Newer models have ha. The asa 5505 does for instance.
    The newer sonic wall series tz series does to.
    http://www.sonicwall.com/us/products/13281.html

  8. #48
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,491

    Default

    I wouldn't call active/passive failover HA...

    And, Untangle will have exactly that soon. It's... very easy to do... but at the same time, rather expensive on the hardware, and to be honest done in a way that I find rather distasteful.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2