1) local server provides a a more cost effective SAN environment. With 200 TB + on a 8 Gbps fibre network (some older clients @ 4 Gbps), there is no cost effective hosted solution for that. We can get by with a 100 Mbps ethernet when it is internal, if we went external, our bandwidth costs monthly would grow exponentially & our access to data would suffer.
Isn't all that solved with something like a Synology or equivalent storage system? Is there some reason to use a traditional server with such systems? Aren't they self-contained?
2) Our outward facing web services are hosted, but our intranet is run with macOS - this has been quite beneficial, and simple to manage. 3) Email, with the capacities we require, would run approximately $5 per user per month, again, no comparison to the (lack of) cost associated with macOS Server, it is a no brainer. Honestly, the biggest loss if we switch to a service (and why we would choose to continue to host our own, just with different software) is the ability to set out attachment sizes. We have grown quite accustom to not blinking at 45, 50+ MB attachments & it has increased our collaboration speed.
1) local server provides a a more cost effective SAN environment. With 200 TB + on a 8 Gbps fibre network (some older clients @ 4 Gbps), there is no cost effective hosted solution for that. We can get by with a 100 Mbps ethernet when it is internal, if we went external, our bandwidth costs monthly would grow exponentially & our access to data would suffer.
Isn't all that solved with something like a Synology or equivalent storage system? Is there some reason to use a traditional server with such systems? Aren't they self-contained?
2) Our outward facing web services are hosted, but our intranet is run with macOS - this has been quite beneficial, and simple to manage. 3) Email, with the capacities we require, would run approximately $5 per user per month, again, no comparison to the (lack of) cost associated with macOS Server, it is a no brainer. Honestly, the biggest loss if we switch to a service (and why we would choose to continue to host our own, just with different software) is the ability to set out attachment sizes. We have grown quite accustom to not blinking at 45, 50+ MB attachments & it has increased our collaboration speed.
Makes sense.
Synology & the like just don't have the throughput necessary for our environment.
Our fibre arrays can sustain 800+ MB/s read and write, 500+ MB/s with 8-10 users. The main array is a dual controller, 8x * Gbps fibre port 48 drive beast.
We do our daily backups to an older, slower fibre array & nightly + off-site to a set of NAS devices. (QNAP and Synology)
1) local server provides a a more cost effective SAN environment. With 200 TB + on a 8 Gbps fibre network (some older clients @ 4 Gbps), there is no cost effective hosted solution for that. We can get by with a 100 Mbps ethernet when it is internal, if we went external, our bandwidth costs monthly would grow exponentially & our access to data would suffer.
Isn't all that solved with something like a Synology or equivalent storage system? Is there some reason to use a traditional server with such systems? Aren't they self-contained?
2) Our outward facing web services are hosted, but our intranet is run with macOS - this has been quite beneficial, and simple to manage. 3) Email, with the capacities we require, would run approximately $5 per user per month, again, no comparison to the (lack of) cost associated with macOS Server, it is a no brainer. Honestly, the biggest loss if we switch to a service (and why we would choose to continue to host our own, just with different software) is the ability to set out attachment sizes. We have grown quite accustom to not blinking at 45, 50+ MB attachments & it has increased our collaboration speed.
Makes sense.
Synology & the like just don't have the throughput necessary for our environment.
Our fibre arrays can sustain 800+ MB/s read and write, 500+ MB/s with 8-10 users. The main array is a dual controller, 8x * Gbps fibre port 48 drive beast.
We do our daily backups to an older, slower fibre array & nightly + off-site to a set of NAS devices. (QNAP and Synology)
That's definitely speedy, but the particulars of the drive array aren't really the point of the discussion. The question is the role a server plays in the implementation. Is a server, whether Mac or something else, even required for sharing storage? Couldn't you eliminate the server altogether and still have access to that shared storage?
1) local server provides a a more cost effective SAN environment. With 200 TB + on a 8 Gbps fibre network (some older clients @ 4 Gbps), there is no cost effective hosted solution for that. We can get by with a 100 Mbps ethernet when it is internal, if we went external, our bandwidth costs monthly would grow exponentially & our access to data would suffer.
Isn't all that solved with something like a Synology or equivalent storage system? Is there some reason to use a traditional server with such systems? Aren't they self-contained?
2) Our outward facing web services are hosted, but our intranet is run with macOS - this has been quite beneficial, and simple to manage. 3) Email, with the capacities we require, would run approximately $5 per user per month, again, no comparison to the (lack of) cost associated with macOS Server, it is a no brainer. Honestly, the biggest loss if we switch to a service (and why we would choose to continue to host our own, just with different software) is the ability to set out attachment sizes. We have grown quite accustom to not blinking at 45, 50+ MB attachments & it has increased our collaboration speed.
Makes sense.
Synology & the like just don't have the throughput necessary for our environment.
Our fibre arrays can sustain 800+ MB/s read and write, 500+ MB/s with 8-10 users. The main array is a dual controller, 8x * Gbps fibre port 48 drive beast.
We do our daily backups to an older, slower fibre array & nightly + off-site to a set of NAS devices. (QNAP and Synology)
That's definitely speedy, but the particulars of the drive array aren't really the point of the discussion. The question is the role a server plays in the implementation. Is a server, whether Mac or something else, even required for sharing storage? Couldn't you eliminate the server altogether and still have access to that shared storage?
macOS Server's Xsan is what we use to create & manage the storage network, so yes, macOS Server is necessary. It is wholly responsible for the implementation & operation of the SAN.
Comments
Makes sense.
Synology & the like just don't have the throughput necessary for our environment.
Our fibre arrays can sustain 800+ MB/s read and write, 500+ MB/s with 8-10 users.
The main array is a dual controller, 8x * Gbps fibre port 48 drive beast.
We do our daily backups to an older, slower fibre array & nightly + off-site to a set of NAS devices. (QNAP and Synology)
It is wholly responsible for the implementation & operation of the SAN.