Home Forums Discussions General Discussion NAS option?

I am presently using Windows XP Pro in a peer-peer configuration with one PC dedicated as the data server.
Would it be possible to put the data files on a NAS network attached hard drive (instead of the PC) and point the other PC's to those files?
Or is the PC needed to control access?

Thanks
Greg

Yes, you can place the mdb files on the NAS and then point the other PC's to those files. This has worked great in our practice. There are many old discussions on NAS out there. Just search on "NAS" or "ReadyNAS" and go back at least a year.

Eric here is the NAS I dream about! LoL
http://www.qnap.com/pro_detail_feature.asp?p_id=109

Hate to sound like a techno-dummy but what is a NAS?

NAS stands for Network Attached Storage.

It is a device with one or more hard drives that attaches directly to your network. Because it is used primarily for file sharing, it does not have a full blown Operating System, and is relatively easy to administer.

The NAS device pictured below, has 8 hard drives.

Mr. gk, can you still set up AC to use just the NAS with the SQL Express backend?

I don't think you will be able to (well), but I'm not sure.

While SQL Server can be configured to work with NAS, Microsoft does not recommend it. If you do not run it on a local disk, then the other option would be to use SAN rather than NAS.

Check out this article on SAN, NAS and SQL Server. Older but still relevant:
http://www.perftuning.com/pdf/MSSqlSAN.pdf

"the main issue with NAS is that the path that the I/O must take typically is much longer than that of a SAN. This is due to the fact that the NAS has network protocols involved that must be processes as well as filesystem overhead. So, in a NAS
environment in may not be possible to achieve 10ms I/O accesses, depending on the NAS. This might adversely affect your performance."

A NAS would probably be OK with a Gigabit ethernet network in a small office but you need to be sure to buy the fastest NAS and drives you can and pair it to a fast Gigabit network. Testing would be required before implementing in production.

So, I was just about to purchase the Netgear RND 4425 NAS to house my data base and set up in essentially a p2p arrangement. Does this thread imply that I might want to reconsider? I am just one doc with 6 stations.

Thanks

the thread just means for best results you should have a Gigabit network in place. the netgear is one of the fastest NAS units based on the testing shared earlier on this forum so you'll be OK there.

Phew,
Glad I don't have to go back to the drawing board. Thanks Eric.

Benjamin, I only use NAS as my Backup Device and at home as file sharing for my media (Video, Audio, Pictures).

My server has a built-in 4 drive RAID5 Array. That is where my SQL Server Data Files are stored.

Bill,

With all due respect to Eric, you not only need to go back to the drawing board, you need to get a bigger one and new markers.

When you use something for which it was not intended, you run into problems. There is a term in IT called "Best Practices." Like EBM, you don't have it for everything but, when you do, you want to follow it.

Putting a live database on an NAS is not recommended. NASes, as the name implies, are designed primarily for file and backup storage. It is pure and simple Network Storage. While the Netgear unit you mention is a good unit, it is basically external hard drives. There are some high end, very expensive iSCSI NAS units for businesses that actually run server OS where you can install SQL on them. Keep in mind that SQL Server generally cannot be installed on an NAS but would need to be installed on a server. The data files could then be moved to NAS, but I am not sure why that would be useful.

An NAS is not designed for high availability nor high performance. They are far slower and more burdensome to deal with than a server. You will run into noticeable slowdowns and issues whether you use Gigabit cards or not. The speed of a network is always due to the slowest component just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Also, GB networks do not run at 1,000Mbs but more in the 350Mb range. Think of a hydroelectric car. It doesn't matter whether it is on a rural road or an Interstate, it can still only go 35MPH.

SQL Express and MySQL are different and can be installed on XP/Vista.

Every once in awhile there is a thread that talks about the use of NASes for the database in place of a server. I think the time to think of an NAS is when you are using a PC as a server on a workgroup or a server in a domain setting and you realize that you are running out of room for files, etc. Rather than add another drive or redo the RAID or whatever, you may decide to go with a storage option such as an NAS. Or maybe your PC that you are using does not have RAID and you wish to put your data on an NAS that uses RAID. Also, obviously, it can be used for backups.

If you find yourself having to find a different database solution, then consider an SAN rather than a NAS.

Given that the Netgear NAS mentioned runs about $900, why not go ahead and get a relatively inexpensive HP server for a little more than double that. Yes, you can get one for that with RAID and with 4GB of RAM. You would have to purchase an OS and CALs, but if you were to go with SBS 2003, you would end up with a real server, Exchange Server, Sharepoint, Active Directory and all of the other benefits of having a domain.

An networking guru once told Adam and me in reference to using XP Home on a business network, "What is it about xp HOME that you don't understand?" I think the same goes for NAS. What is it about Network Attached Storage that you don't understand. (That is for a clear emphasis on the above -- not intended to be insulting).

This is the short version of the above.

I will never understand what it is about server/client domain setups that people don't want. I do not mean this in any way to put down those who are happy with a peer-to-peer workgroup setup. But, for those who are going to upgrade their network, investing in a real server and a DOMAIN would be the way to go IMHO.

I would throw this out there. If you are happy with your current setup and just want to use AC and not have the benefits of a server/client setup, that is perfectly fine.

But, if you enjoy the computing and networking part of medicine and are thinking that since I have to run AC, billing and scheduling on a shared platform anyway and want to have FUN with all of the things you can do with a server, then consider a server.

Just some thoughts.

I really can't say enough that I do not wish to insult anyone for what network they have decided to use. Just because I like and enjoy the server setup, doesn't mean it is for everyone. And, I should say, that the fun is not without its downside. I tend to have fun until 11PM every night.

I believe the answer to a particular hardware setup all depends on user requirements specified.

For a small office with a physician on a limited budget that is not interested in playing with a more complicated IT hardware configuration, a NAS is a very workable and lower cost solution. This is how I thought Bill described himself. If Bill can spare the extra change and doesn't mind configuring and maintaining a server, then he may as well take that jump at the outset as Bert suggests. But if his office will not grow, a server may be over engineering the solution.

High availability and high performance decisions are a matter of user requirements and the amount of money you have available against those requirements. A NAS with the proper RAID setup and attached Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) is an appropriate level of availability for most offices. It probably is better than most offices have now.

As an office has more physicians and system demands, then an upgrade to a server configuration with attached storage is preferable. A server can provide many more functions than a simple NAS but the configuration complexity goes up as well. This is a natural step on the upgrade path as you become more familiar with the demands of your IT setup.

About 1 year ago I recommended to AC support team that they publish recommended hardware configuration. They didn't want to do this as AC could run on so many different configurations. Maybe it is time to revisit this.

Eric,

Thanks for your reply. While I agree, as I wrote in a different way, that it is a personal and financial choice whether or not to use a server, we will have to agree to disagree on the NAS solution.

NAS is a solution for what it was intended. Storage and backups. If you wish to do more, then you would do step up to a more versatile solution such as Netapp, but that would run thousands of dollars.

In my opinion, Bill would be much better off purchasing a computer for his peer-to-peer that has a lot of RAM and a good backup strategy.

Given the conflicting information, I would recommend that Bill talk to an IT person, preferably one with SMB qualifications and Microsoft Certified.

thanks for your thoughts

I have to admit to a certain amount of intimidation about the server option. I would honestly rather just keep the data base on my desktop or get a dedicated pc to house the database in a peer to peer environment than to have to deal with a server.

Bill

if you wanted to compare read/write performance of readynas vs. a particular server configuration, here is how to do it.

ReadyNAS forum post on performance

This posting also gives you some good hints on how to optimize your configuration for read/write performance. This is important whether you pick a NAS or a server.

For fun and to give you an idea how detailed you can get with server and disk configuration to optimize database performance, check out this link:

Article on sql disk performance

Bert, I am flummoxed by the fact that AC4 REQUIRES SQL Server 2005 Express, and as of yet, I have not seen a way to move the database to a server. The advantages are simple for those who ALREADY have a server (or SBS).

Johnathan Bertman wrote the following Here. :


The software demands a PEER-PEER configuration.

So perhaps, this is part of the REASON people are inclined to peer to peer.

Why? Think of a server as Microsoft Word. It can be overwhelmingly complicated if you tried to use every feature. Hell, mail merge is daunting. But, someone using a computer for the first time, can open Word, type and print.

A server is simply a glorified client. I know that is an over simplification. But, if you purchase a server, you can put your data on it and use it as a peer to peer. Or as a workgroup without using it as a domain. You could buy a$20,000 server and simply turn it on and use it. The only difference is it may say Windows 2000 Server on the screen saver. .

Better off to buy a server and use it as a computer, then upgrade it later, than to buy a $500 Acer computer and then not be able to use it as a server later. I talk to at least five people on here with SBS 2003 who haven't made it a domain controller yet and, hence, it is an expensive PC in a workgroup.

Also, think Workgroup and Domain and not client/server all the time.

Wow! I must have missed that statement. While setting up a client/server domain network is more complex than setting up a peer-to-peer, the beauty of SBS 2003 and 2008 are the wizards. Certainly, I just didn't step up to the plate the first time and set my first SBS 2003 domain. I used a knowledgeable person. But, since that time, I have tore it down and rebuilt it numerous times both on my server and in test environments.

You do not need your own IT person for SBS 2003. Like anything else, it would be nice just as it would be nice to share an office with a dermatologist and a hematologist so you could harbor their skills when possible.

I think I would have put it in a way where it read that AC is built to take full advantage of a client/server environment AND can work on a peer-to-peer workgroup.

I think statements such as the above scare people from considering a server when, in fact, it is beneficial.

I also thing a huge area of misthought (sp?) is just like with backups. With backups, everyone talks like the only thing to back up on your network is the AmazingCharts.mdb. And, with computer networks it sounds as though we all talk about building the computer system specifically for AC. Step back and think about what do I want for my office. If you end up deciding that your PM and other programs and your overall office will run better with a server, then it's nice you can put AC on it.

I should probably confess that when I worked with another physician for quite sometime, we had this huge and powerful server that basically was a computer. Does each of your computers have to log onto the server? If not, then there is no domain. Our computers did not. But, I learned a ton about networking even so.

OK Bert, are you running AC4 with the database in SQL Server or is the database in SQL Express?

Are you kidding. I am not even running V4 except in VM.

Ok Bert,

How about this as a compromise? I really don't want to do the server thing. I hear you about the NAS. I want to have a dedicated machine for my data base. How about a Dell Precision workstation. This would give me redundancy so I don't have to worry about "going down" as much. And I would have the simplicity of an operating system with which I am familiar, an easy P 2 P network, no CALs, and it is about the cost of a new PC.

I think that is a great idea. And, I think also you got great answers from Eric as well.

From my understanding, and I just received an email from Jon about this, the setup for SQL on AC is not compatible with an external drive, even NAS if it isn't extremely robust.

I like your idea, and I and I am sure others, will be more than happy to help in any way we can.

Thanks for your confidence in me.