NetApp Vs Emc For Virtualization
- 1. VM WARE S TORAGE N ETA PP VS EMC 1
- 2. S TORAGE L AYOUT A SSUMPTIONS Common Assumptions Total Virtual Machines = 500 Avg Data & OS size = 96GB per VM (Based on P2V Scenario) Double Disk Failure Protection FC disks only Growth Rate = 15% & Fudge Factor = 10% No data protection – No NetApp Snapshot or EMC BCV 30 ESX servers EMC Assumptions LUN should < 2TB RAID-10 technology (20 drives per RAID group) + 40:1 hotspare ratio FC LUNs are thick provisioned by default NetApp Assumptions 30% Deduplication (Due to P2V process, OS and Data drives will be mixed thus reducing dedup to an estimated 30%) 100 VMs per NFS datastore RAID-DP technology (16 drives per RAID group) + 2 hotspare for every 100 drives NFS is thin provisioned by default 2
- 3. VM WARE S TORAGE – EMC Number of Datastores = 38 Allocated Space = 70TB 3
- 4. VM WARE S TORAGE – N ETA PP Number of Datastores = 8 Allocated Space = 41TB 4
- 5. C OMPARISON – EMC VS N ETA PP EMC NetApp Advantage Number of Datastores 38 8 79% (less is better) Allocated Capacity 70TB 41TB 42% (less is better) Number of Disks 360 x 450GB 140 x 450GB 63% (less is better) (including RAID + Hot Spares) EMC NetApp Advantage Datacenter Space 72RU 30RU 58% (less is better) (does not including controllers – only diskshelves) Datacenter Cooling 34,800 BTUs 14,140 BTUs 59% (less is better) (does not including controllers – only diskshelves) Datacenter Power 10.32 kW 4.43 kW 57% (less is better) (does not including controllers – only diskshelves) 5
- 6. C OMPARISON – V ISUAL • 42% less storage • 58% less space • 57% less power 6
- 7. N ETA PP – S TORAGE E FFICIENCY Thin Provisioning of VMs via NFS Provision based on space used by physical server, not by the allocated drive space. Deduplication Technology We anticipate 30% deduplication per datastore based on elimination of duplication data within OS drives. Save 18% Save 70TB 57TB 42% 41TB Thin Provisioning Thin Provisioning + Dedup 7