<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Need a Storage System recommendation for multitenancy in ONTAP Hardware</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103557#M6317</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;ok thanks for the info&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>CLOUDMINER</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-04-22T13:02:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Need a Storage System recommendation for multitenancy</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103520#M6309</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I need a cheap storage system that can be used in the context of multitenancy. &amp;nbsp;For compliance purposes, I need the following:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Be able to create two separate IP addresses for iSCSI targets, so that tenant 1's iSCSI network can be on a different vLAN/subnet than tenant 2's iSCSI network.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Perhaps use a vFiler to separate storage domains for the two tenants.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;what is the cheapest FAS series filer that can do this? Does an eSeries filer this? &amp;nbsp;Whatever system I get should be able to separate these two tenants in a way that supports compliance standards like HIPAA, etc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 04:31:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103520#M6309</guid>
      <dc:creator>CLOUDMINER</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T04:31:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Need a Storage System recommendation for multitenancy</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103521#M6310</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Clustered Data ONTAP 8.3 should be able to take care of all of your requirements. Storage Virtual Machines (vserver or SVM) and IP Spaces will take care of the&amp;nbsp;multitenancy requirements you mentinoed. The entry level NetApp platform is the&amp;nbsp;FAS2520 and will be the smallest controller that will run Clustered Data ONTAP 8.3.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:07:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103521#M6310</guid>
      <dc:creator>DREW_RUSSELL</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-21T19:07:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Need a Storage System recommendation for multitenancy</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103522#M6311</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;OK thanks. &amp;nbsp;Does that mean that I cannot do this with an e-series array?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, you did not mention vfiler. &amp;nbsp;Is using a vfiler possible?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;How specifically would the tenant storage be isolated?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:24:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103522#M6311</guid>
      <dc:creator>CLOUDMINER</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-21T19:24:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Need a Storage System recommendation for multitenancy</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103523#M6312</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;vFilers are no longer a concept in Clustered Data ONTAP. They equavalent would be the SVM though. The main difference is that SVMs are not tied to a specific piece of hardware. You can find more detailed information on SVMs&amp;nbsp;&lt;A title="here" target="_blank" href="https://library.netapp.com/ecmdocs/ECMP1368701/html/GUID-E643017F-041B-4ECC-BEA1-E4D80E26A47E.html"&gt;here&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;. For IP Spaces check out this &lt;A title="blog post" target="_self" href="https://community.netapp.com/t5/Technology/Clustered-ONTAP-8-3-amp-IPspaces/ba-p/98860"&gt;blog post&lt;/A&gt;. If you have any follow up quetions let me know.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:32:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103523#M6312</guid>
      <dc:creator>DREW_RUSSELL</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-21T19:32:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Need a Storage System recommendation for multitenancy</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103524#M6313</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;OK great thanks. &amp;nbsp;What about e-series - is there an eseries that would meet what I am trying to do cheaper?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:56:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103524#M6313</guid>
      <dc:creator>CLOUDMINER</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-21T19:56:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Need a Storage System recommendation for multitenancy</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103525#M6314</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;To be completley&amp;nbsp;honest I am not an E-Series guy. I can tell you that the E-Series runs SANtricity OS and not Clustered Data ONTAP. I'm not familar with its multitenancy options but my gut reaction is to say it wont support what&amp;nbsp;you are looking for.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:10:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103525#M6314</guid>
      <dc:creator>DREW_RUSSELL</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-21T20:10:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Need a Storage System recommendation for multitenancy</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103537#M6315</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size="2"&gt;Couple of thoughts on E-series vs FAS -&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size="2"&gt;1. &amp;nbsp;E-series is designed specifically to do Block protocols very fast. &amp;nbsp;And it does - the code path/latency through the controller is like only 20% of the code path/latency through a FAS controller. &amp;nbsp;It's a simpler design if all you need is one block protocol type. &amp;nbsp;Possibly cheaper if all you need is one procotol and not a lot of extra fancy snapshot/dedup/etc. that comes with FAS.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size="2"&gt;2. &amp;nbsp;E-series can do multi-tenancy sort of through LUN groups, in that certain LUNs would only be available through certain interfaces, but it cannot provide 100% isolation. &amp;nbsp;Granted, system admins get full access of course. &amp;nbsp;But with the Multi-Tenancy features in DoT 8.3 FAS can expressly&amp;nbsp;isolate multiple customers from each other. &amp;nbsp;You could in a FAS provide identical "virtual" hardware setups to multiple customers - that is the storage could look exactly identical right down to the IP addresses yet administrators and hosts defined within one customer can be completely isolated from another customer. &amp;nbsp;Available space to allocate storage can similarly be completely isolated (assigning SVMs to unique aggregates if needed). &amp;nbsp;Thus customer level admins can assume they have their own unique storage and only the full cluster admin can see the entire system design.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size="2"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Direction depends much on the level of isolation and the features you need/want to expose.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:20:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103537#M6315</guid>
      <dc:creator>bobshouseofcards</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-21T22:20:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Need a Storage System recommendation for multitenancy</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103557#M6317</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;ok thanks for the info&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Hardware/Need-a-Storage-System-recommendation-for-multitenancy/m-p/103557#M6317</guid>
      <dc:creator>CLOUDMINER</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-04-22T13:02:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

