ISCSI SAN server management is a very weak link

In the storage business, a popular metric for measuring management costs is to compute "T-byte/FTE", which is how many TB a full-time employee can manage. While that may seem a bit over the top at first glance, based on some of the truly abysmal management models we witnessed throughout this testing cycle, we think it's a reasonable assumption.

All products tested have graphical user interfaces, generally either Web- or Java-based. These GUIs ranged from the one outstanding representative we found in Compellent's StorageCenter down through a range of good-to-average products to ones that could use significant improvement, such as those currently shipping with the D-Link DSN-3200-10, the Reldata Unified Storage Gateway and the StoneFly Storage Concentrator.

Some products also have command-line interface (CLI) access, including the Dell PS5000XV, FalconStor NSS-S12, HP StorageWorks 2012i, Kano NetCOR 7500, and the NetApp FAS2050. Having access via a CLI is useful, especially when performing repeated operations (such as when we were creating 16 virtual disks during installation), but normal day-to-day operations should not require the CLI, that is, if the GUI is well-designed.

With both the Kano and NetApp products, it's clear that the GUI is discouraged in favor of the CLI. In fact, the NetApp FAS2050 really cannot be entirely managed via the GUI — significant portions of it require CLI access, a sign of the incremental development of NetApp's products. Based on our testing, NetApp has long passed the point where a complete user interface and terminology redesign are required. For example, the NetApp FAS2050 was the only device in our testing that required managing the two different controllers in the appliance as completely separate elements — even though they were bound into a cluster. While NetApp does offer software that can unify multiple controllers, no other vendors required added code to present a unified view of their device in the management system.

Main management requirements

For our tests, we didn't explore every nook and cranny of the management interfaces of these systems, but looked in four key areas: configuration, monitoring, alerting and reporting.

Configuration was generally easy overall throughout testing, although we did bump into some extreme rough spots. Compellent's StorageCenter, Dell's PS5000XV, HP's StorageWorks 2012i, Kano's NetCOR 7500, LeftHand Networks NSM 2120, and Nexsan's SATABeast all came up and started sharing data a few minutes after initial power-on, without undue drama or stress. We got through NetApp's FAS2050 as well, once we understood that we had to do everything twice. Similarly, D-Link's GUI took some getting used to, but we figured it out even if it took longer than necessary for what is essentially a simple product.

We were less satisfied with the configuration models presented by the Celeros EzSANFiler XD34S, FalconStor NSS-S12, Reldata Unified Storage Gateway, and StoneFly Storage Concentrator. In each case, the iSCSI storage controller is managed somewhat separately from the actual disk array being offered. In the case of the FalconStor product, for example, the disk controller is an internal Acera controller which is completely unmanaged by the FalconStor GUI. That means that configuration, status information, and anything else to do with how the physical disks are actually organized into RAID arrays are completely separate from the rest of the GUI.