Cisco Blogs
Share

Do you need more storage but fewer servers?


November 9, 2016 - 2 Comments

Last week, I discussed the economics of on-premises storage using the S3260 Storage Server vs. the cloud. Net net, the S3260 is 56% less expensive.

Today, I wanted to talk about server consolidation of multiple 2RU rackmount servers on to a S3260. Yes, I’m going to try and sell you fewer servers.

2RU rackmount server like the Cisco UCS C240 M4 support both large and small form factor drives. Depending upon LFF or SFF, the capacity of the drive varies greatly. We’ll be focusing on LFF drives which are up to 10TB. This gives us 120TB raw in 2RU.

The S3260 supports up to 60 LFF 10TB drives when using one server node or 600TB raw in 4RU.

S3260 vs. C240 M4 LFF

S3260 vs. C240 M4 LFF

 

 

Now let’s look at an example of consolidating five C240 M4 LFF on to a S3260.

If I’m targeting for 600TB, I would load up five C240 M4 servers with 12 drives and a S3260 with a single server node with 60 drives. What are the results?

S3260 vs. C240 M4 LFF

 

There are a lot of ways to configure CPU, memory, and IO so the CapEx and power savings are variable depending upon the configuration. The space, cabling, and management savings will remain the same.

If you need more compute power in your S3260, you can sacrifice four hard drives and replace them with a second compute node.

Best part of the S3260 is that it is managed with UCS Manager right alongside B-Series blade servers and C-Series rack servers. One tool, one set of processes and procedures to manage your environment regardless of form factor.

Hopefully I’ve piqued your curiosity enough reach out to your Cisco Account Team or Partner to learn more about the S3260 Storage Server.



In an effort to keep conversations fresh, Cisco Blogs closes comments after 60 days. Please visit the Cisco Blogs hub page for the latest content.

2 Comments

  1. And ofcourse additional benefit of reduced software cost for those that are licensed based on server qty or CPU socket/core count, depending on the software.

    • Dicky, You are exactly right. I didn't include the software savings it would be dependent on just what software stack was used. Thanks for reading & commenting. Bill