Tony
Do you have any posts saved that say that?
Actually I had a post that I printed out...links can go dead after a period of time.....the website is WallStreetCity.com. The date of the article was January 19, 2000; it was called "Data Banks of the Post-PC Era, Network Attached Storage versus Storage Area Networks"; the author was Chris Connor and it was written under the "Stocks in Focus" section. This guy Connors writes a lot of their net hardware and broadband articles, and seems very knowledgeable at least to someone like me who is technologically challenged.
NAS has lots of severe limitations, not the least of which is security. Your data is hanging out there on the public network for anyone to grab. It also has one packet at a time transmission limitations, whereas SAN has no such restrictions. NAS may be OK for low security, low bandwidth applications, which tend to be low storage capacity also. But the power users, like banks, Visa, airlines, insurance cos, etc., won't put anything business critical on NAS. So, I disagree with you, again, at least for the next 5 years, which is like near forever in high tech. :-)
He essentially says that NAS is easier to install; easier to operate; and very versatile when compared to SANS. He does not talk about security which I would think is a very valid point.
ted |
