Comments on: What is the correct denotation of a SAN?

By: sonotsky

sonotsky — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:33:55 +0000

Ah, the old “the network is the computer” problem.

On a LAN, does the network cease to exist because all endpoints have disconnected? No. The network – hubs, switches, routers, MUXes, concentrators, front-ends, whatever – are the network. It’s an endpoint that defines its existence on the network (dhcp assignment or static IP) but not the network itself. The network is a resource to be consumed by endpoints, like power from the wall. The power is still there (hopefully) even after you turn off your workstation.

However, it’s not quite an accurate analogy with a SAN. SANs are typically defined by zones in a zoneset or explicit, direct host-to-storage connections with masking/mapping of WWNs. If nothing is defined or enabled, there is no SAN, regardless if endpoints are physically connected or not; endpoints can’t make such a configuration on their own.

By: carlosdl

carlosdl — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:50:56 +0000

“But in my opinion this is not part of the SAN but connected to the SAN”

I have to disagree.

Saying that, is like saying that a computer is connected to a LAN but is not part of it.

A SAN without storage devices connected to it, is not a SAN.

By: ronaldbazuin

ronaldbazuin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:39:47 +0000

Well I was looking at SNIA website and they speak indeed about SAN as only the network and not the Storage Array. Many times a hear people speak about a SAN and then they mean a Storage Array. But in my opinion this is not part of the SAN but connected to the SAN.