LUN in the volume created for SAN and NAS - any performance issues?

[krzysztof_nowotarski]

Hello,

I got stuck at some point with creating a new LUN. I can create volume for NAS and SAN. I can also create a LUN in both. Is there any reasonable case of using LUN in the volume created for NAS? What is the difference between two volumes - one created for NAS and another for SAN? I see in the snapshot space reservation only. Any performance issues?

Kris

[aborzenkov · Accepted solution]

There is no inherent differences between volumes; it all boils down to how you use them. Because SAN and NAS worlds differ in space and snapshot management, it is usually not recommended to mix SAN and NAS data on the same volume. But there is nothing that technically prevents it. Indeed, it is even possible to allow access to LUN as normal files via NFS for purposes of backup or data mining.

[paulstringfellow]

No performance wise doesn’t really matter…in the end a volume is a volume what you choose to put in it is up to you…

SnapShot reserve is the obvious thing that is set on NAS volumes…but also things like Snapshot schedules etc are set.

The only reason System Manager (assuming that’s what you’re using) offers that facility is to just automate some of the settings that are normally made depending on how you intend to use the volume, as far as I know at least.

So you should be fine…the thing not to do is use the volume to actually do both, although technically you can, its not great practice..if it’s a LUN leave it as such don’t then try and put Share Data in it, as you can, but creates all kind of longer term admin issues for you…

[peter_lehmann]

In case of System Manager, it would be nice to have it automatically setting the "no_atime_update" to ON instead of OFF... When one creates a SAN volume.

Peter