100 Replies to “NAS vs SAN – Network Attached Storage vs Storage Area Network

  1. Great video, but a few things I would disagree with.
    A NAS or a SAN is really the type of layout of the physical infra, It is ether a server, multiple servers, or a separate storage network (the S in SAN) How your client see that data isn't typically bound to if you are using a SAN or a NAS, Either one can provide SMB, NFS, ISCSI and other protocols, The reason you might of associated SANs as a "local drive" to the client instead of a "shared drive" is because SANS are typically used in a large IT footprint where ISCSI is perfected for VMs and ESXI hosts to attach to. while NASs are typically used in smaller environment that just need a shared storage pool. This still does not prevent the NAS from acting as a ISCSI target though.

    Granted, there are a million ways to skin a cat, and the terms "san" and "nas" sometimes seems interchangeable.

  2. A network all by itself? It's usually part of a LAN (backbone). You mean subnet? Different subnets are still part of the same LAN. Of course one can use LUN's over WAN as well. This video could've used more detail. What the hell does "very" redundant mean? xD

  3. I would love to see a video about explaining iSCSI in a way that shows how iSCSI targets and iSCSI LUNs are all about. For example can a single iSCSI target have multiple LUNs and so on… I never found a video explaining this clearly.

  4. Love the Videos, you make more sense than my tutor haha.. But seriously, these are helping so much with my understanding. Now to find good references for my assignments 🙂

  5. Hello Guys, I am looking for a hardware device to send audio input to the Web server and play response received back from the server. Please let me know if someone knows about this kind of device

  6. You are making some incorrect assumptions about these technologies. NAS is a single system dependent upon a traditional layer 3 ip packet switched network and requires a client implementation for presentation. A SAN is a layer 2+ technology that involves a multitude of systems for providing connectivity/switching across the network and presentation appears native to the OS due to encapsulated SCSI payloads. A NAS can be extremely fault tolerant and redundant and a SAN can be poorly implemented and unreliable. A SAN can be ethernet or fibre channel (note fibre channel is NOT fibre optics, its a protocol for encapsulation of SCSI frames). While this video IS simple, it is also misleading and neglects some finer details that are worth noting to actually clear confusion and get rid of propagating assumptions.

  7. Nas devices can be stacked similarly to your san example. I would also say both setups are still dependent on your network as the data still needs a path to local clients to retrieve and send data.

  8. I'm sorry to say that, but this is absolute misconception of these two technologies. In enterprise solutions NAS can be and usually is implemented in a fault tolerance manner. Solutions like EMC Isilon or Netapp C-dot clusters with redundant network connections for instance are as much reliable as SAN devices.

    The main difference is about file system and data transfer protocol. In NAS file system is already on the device, it's optimized for data sharing across large amount of clients/servers. while on SAN devices only RAW blocks of storage space are presented to the HOSTs. Cause of that SAN is considered very often as faster solutions with lower latency. which finally brings us to protocols of transporting the data. In NAS it's IP which have significant amount of metadata overhead comparing to FCP used in SAN (also different different acknowledgment algorithms).

    Protocols like FCoE or FCIP or ISCSI are intentionally skipped cause we are talking rather about traditional implementation of SAN which is FCP.

    Well there are also a lot of other differences like main purpose of use, replication methods and distances, backup techniques and granularity of restore, antivirus implementation and so on. but this is not the topic for you-tube comment 😉

    Take care and stay "Storage" focus.

  9. Interesting but I would hate to see the "cost" vs "need for such a redundant system" comparison. I would just use 1 File-server within a Rackmount enclosure myself, well If I were rich anyway.

    The file server has multiple options for RAID Cards, Optical 10G network cards, Redundant Power Supplies, multiple OS's to choose from and pick the hardware bit by bit – Motherboard, CPU, Memory and a mirrored OS via 2 M2 slots running at 2,000 MBps transfer rates, loading up the OS in a few seconds or so.

    I do not really know much in the IT world but in my dream system, this would be my choice.

  10. Can you please explain connectivity difference between FC and Iscsi and Scsi and How to connect by using that.

  11. That‘s a very bad description of NAS/SAN. The fundamentals (NAS being file-based and SAN being block-based) is correct, but almost everything else is either incorrect or outdated.
    As has been mentioned before, there are highly available NAS solutions and you can (and should) create you own „storage network“. Even homeusers don‘t have single PSU NAS devices nowadays…

  12. The different bewtween nas and san is that a san is a nas, but you dont store files on the san, the san stores files on YOU!

  13. You guys really are the best of all the cert training videos I wish you did more! Always clear and simple explanations, well done.

  14. woow, you talk about old nas server technology, today you have nas with dual controller, with iscsi 10, 25, 40 gb / s, there are NAS with ISCSI per block, there are nas with protocol fc, this video would be great if we were in the 2000

  15. There is one SAN vendor, Coraid, that repurposes Ethernet to serve as the substrate for its network in order to reduce cost.

  16. The disadvantage you mentioned doesn't apply to a selfbuild one. You can get dual server psu's and all the good stuff if you really want to. Even in rack form.

  17. NAS vs SAN to me = SAN has dedicated controllers that handle multiple disk shelves.
    Otherwise it is a NAS, which also do iSCSI and Fiber Channel so that is not exclusive to SAN's

  18. A computer nerds perspective…

    I have a SAN setup at home and it's really not that expensive – far cheaper than a NAS although the initial learning curve is steeper. SANs are not plug-and-play in the way that a consumer NAS unit is, they require some proper administration and configuration. Fortunately, this isn't too difficult once you understand how the elements of a SAN interact.

    Since SAN equipment is designed for the enterprise it is power efficient and almost bombproof.

    I bought cheap second hand enterprise equipment that was SAS and SATA capable from a certain 'bay' popular with shoppers. I then populated them with the cheaper SATA (never do this in an enterprise). I bought a job-lot of 6 Disk Shelves, each with 24 drive capability but currently only use two shelves at half capacity. These provide redundant storage services to my 16-blade m1000e server (delivering a private vSphere VM cloud) and to my workstations.

    At 40Gb/s the SAN is far faster than my former QNAP NAS which only had a single 1Gbit LAN port. The built in redundant RAID controllers, redundant network cards and redundant PSUs mean that the shelf can develop a fault and just keeps on running. The data redundancy in the storage medium is automatic and transparent, letting me get on with my life. In use it feels very responsive… indistinguishable from a local drive in fact.

    I'd recommend a secondhand SAN shelf over a NAS to anyone who likes tech and isn't scared to learn new things. NAS units tend to lack any real redundancy, usually don't offer much storage and only a single type of filesystem. They often have numerous software plugins for things like torrenting and websharing, but security (in consumer NAS units) is sometimes very much an afterthought so I'd never advise exposing one to the wider internet.

    Basically, geeks should use SANs… no excuses ; )

    Oh, and SANs have WAY more blinkenlights! And we should all strive for more blinkenlighten in our lives!

  19. very good accent, i'm french and i understand everything , thanks a lot !!!! i do understand very well now ! and these explications are very nice !

  20. dear keith can u pls post some videos on fabric understanding/ leaf and spine switches and data centre concepts

  21. If I look at the word NAS in the mirror, it will say SAN. Same goes for the word SAN.
    I shall put this on my resume and apply to a big tech firm, with confidence I will be immediately hired as genius-level lead engineer.

  22. SAN is fun to play with. Bought some old IBM equipment, pcie SAS controller cards and cables from ebay. Used two debian servers with 40Gbps infiniband. 60 hours spent. worth it 😀

  23. There are lot of NAS out there as an example Isilon (EMC product) that supports redundancy even if node goes down there wont be any affect on NAS even if whole cluster goes down you can use superna eye glass for disaster recovery purposes to replicate/mirror data.

  24. This FREE Video: Gives crystal clear explanation of what they are.
    My Cyber Security class: SANS are multiple file servers that are more secure than NAS.

  25. A very misleading video. There are lots of NAS solutions providers that also provide redundancy for PSU (Power Supply Unit) and redundant network connections, so a Network Administrator can set up redundant switches / routers which ensure that users can access resources even when a part of the network fails. The separate NAS units even can be bonded together, so that when one unit fails, the other takes over and retains access to the data. We usually call this High Availability.

  26. Para quem estiver assistindo no Brasil, entendam que este video lida com conceitos ultrapassados, pois atualmente existem NAS de alto desempenho que podem ser usados em Redes SAN de grande porte, e também existem os storages unificados que funcionam tanto em rede SAN como NAS. SAN é topologia e não dispositivo/equipamento.

  27. This will be a "told you so" video link.

    I see so many SME using NAS as a solution when they should be using SAN. they put a lot of money into NAS systems which offers low speed and congestion and try to scale these and make them work. Really they are trying to make a SAN.

    When I see the NAS solutions that are available, I think to simple windows file sharing which is what they are. and as a professional I know all the limits and problems that they cause.
    I have a NAS and I have SAN, My Nas is slow it is not redundant, and probably one of my biggest worries. While I use it as Back up as and more so a archive. I have my data else where.
    It is shocking that SME and businesses are using NAS as a SAS (software services) and the main server for their entire workflow!!

    My SAN is largely different, its zoned and its independent. I can add and take away as I need to. it is a "next level" solution where you want data access and data storage and FC is not the cheapest options available, but it is not overly priced (IMO). it is a secondary infrastructure platform that works. it is also more flexible and practical.

    For example if Im using a SAN I do not need to spec desktop and workstations for the data requirements, thus I can have a small drive (for cache), lots of RAM and good graphics and other needed hardware. I can then boot and store all my data and software on the SAN.
    There is the added security, if my desktop gets a virus, or if it is hacked, it is not a detriment ( in some cases) to the SAN, and can be better protected than a "direct unfiltered system".

    If users/clients have multiple systems, having to upgrade each system takes time and money, where as when using a SAN you have one point to upgrade making it easier and scalable at a single point not many, so it rolls out much better. Also updates and patches are so much more easy.

  28. Dude, this is the BEST video I can find on the Internet that explains NAS SAN clearly for a beginner. So many vids are focusing on all those terminologies which is a nightmare for the audience. Yours is straightforward and comes from real-world..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *