Why does network-attached storage (NAS) have such a poor reputation? This isn’t what the vendors want to be talking about, but some recent product announcements and discussions led to this thought. IT folks as a whole don’t trust NAS for real work, and 20 years of effort from big names like Sun, Microsoft, NetApp, IBM, and the rest hasn’t changed that.
Back when I used to teach the “Storage 101â€³ session at Storage Decisions, I was consistently amazed to find little awareness of enterprise NAS systems. People complained about LUNs and Fibre Channel but when I suggested using NFS or SMB their heads almost exploded. “We would never use that for application storage,” they shouted. “File servers are for home directories, not data center stuff!” Clearly, NAS faces an uphill battle.
In a recent piece I wrote, I referred to what I consider to be the prime best practice: Use the right tool for the job. It’s a simple statement, and one that resonates beyond IT and the technology world. But it can be devilishly difficult to see what the right tool is sometimes. Why not use NAS for virtual machine storage? NetApp has been beating that drum for years, yet NAS has a very small footprint in VMware. How about databases on NFS? Exchange over SMB? Block storage has a massive lead over NAS in all of these areas.
Rear this “best practices” piece, Use Process Solutions For Process Problems, Technical Solutions For Technical Ones
IT folks seem downright fearful of file-level storage protocols. Has NFS really burned them that badly over the decades? Can SMB/CIFS really be as bad as they think?
I wonder if this terror has more to do with the products people have used than the fundamental concept of file services. Many NAS servers (and clients) are barely functional. Sadly, NFS and SMB are easy to get 80% right, but the 20% corner case interaction takes decades to overcome. My daily storage consulting work exposes me to a myriad of NAS configurations, and few of the multi-platform combinations end well.
Note: Although it has long been known by a variety of names, the Windows NAS protocol is currently called Server Message Block or SMB. Common Internet File System (CIFS) was a failed mid-1990’s attempt by Microsoft to make this protocol standard on the Internet.
Consider the Mac. Apple added an SMB client to OS X in 2001 but, despite many updates, it is far from reliable. Mac users in general loathe connecting to Windows file servers, and business users have located numerous bugs in the handling of Mac-specific file types. It’s bad enough that one company, GroupLogic, created an entire AFP server for Windows just to solve these tricky issues.
This situation often happens in reverse, too. Windows admins are justifiably cautious when deploying non-Windows SMB servers, whether software (Samba, Novell, etc) or system (NetApp, Celerra, BlueArc, etc). As a very early NetApp user, I watched their CIFS/SMB server evolve over a decade and a half into a fairly robust solution, but the early years were downright painful.
Lest you throw rocks at Redmond, know that SMB is not alone with functionality problems. The interoperability of NFS servers and clients is a bit better thanks to open(ish) standards and open source implementations, but its reputation is just as bad. And Apple’s proprietary AFP protocol is downright notorious.
I’ve been there myself many times. I tried to set up a home server based on open source software (Linux, FreeBSD, Samba, Netatalk, etc) but rejected it outright after many frustrating years. Today I use a Mac Mini for file sharing in OS X and serving iTunes music and movies (goodbye, Firefly!) And years of fighting with Samba in enterprise environments taught me two things: It’s possible to get it running well with Windows clients but it’s astonishingly easy to get it wrong.
We all know that interoperability is devilishly difficult. I don’t envy the NetApp and EMC engineers that have to tweak and tune their server for every possible client, bugs and all. And I am impressed that, after probably millions of man-hours of work, they were able to come up with something stable for a subset of use cases. But this just makes me even more cautious about third-party NAS servers.
I talk to storage vendors all the time, and many of their new products support NFS and SMB. But my internal alarms start going off when I hear about these products. There are two simple reasons for this:
- As mentioned above, NAS is rare in primary data center applications. It may be common for user files (euphemistically called “unstructured data”) and certain distributed applications (simulation, rendering, etc), but most use cases still call for block SCSI (FC/iSCSI) storage.
- As further mentioned, getting NAS right takes a massive amount of effort. New and small vendors tend to slap Samba on their (Linux-based) box and call it a day. This is very, very far from being sufficient for enterprise use.
This is why I usually ignore NAS functionality in storage systems except for long-tenured and deep-pocketed vendors. Although the world is turning to “Unified Storage” and multi-protocol support, I’m focusing primarily on block (SCSI) and cloud (REST) capability because the former has proven somewhat easier than NAS to get working and the latter is both simple and “green field” with no legacy concerns.
Leave a Comment