Yes, I am in full support of your current solution. Since you have very powerful hardware in your PE2950 it will for sure outperform pretty much any NAS on the market as long as you don't use it for any other taxing workload. And a 4GB FC SAN should most definately perform better than most local storage than a dedicated NAS would have. Dedicated NAS-boxes often has just your run-of-the-mill lowend server parts that runs it's stripped down OS.

And since your solution can act as a NAS in pretty much every way there isn't any advantage in a dedicated NAS except perhaps price, rack space and most likely setup time. But since you already have your setup up and running all of those factors don't really matter do they.

Since the file-level access to a dedicated NAS or your current "NAS"-solution would most likely be the same I don't see that anything on the client could make any difference. And I don't know of any technology that would improve a NAS-solution that reside on the client side either.

There could actually even be an advantage to have your solution instead of a dedicated NAS if you use Win2008 and Vista on your clients since you could use SMB 2.0 which would probably improve performance significantly. Add jumbo frames capability to the mix (every part of the network between your clients and your PE2950 must support it) and you would have pretty much the best possible performance possible in a NAS scenario. Most dedicated NAS-boxes don't support SMB 2.0 since they are not based on Win2008. That will change when dedicated NAS-boxes are released with the new Windows Storage Server 2008.

Take a look at Dells NAS solutions and you'll se that the most powerful ones are somewhat similiar to your solution.

Should also mention the latest trend with a hybrid NAS/SAN. A networked storage unit that can give both file- and block-level access.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?