I'm still in the process of designing our hardware infrastructure for an upcoming zimbra project. Some weeks ago I already asked some questions about storage and disc types. (Best Practise For Large Mailboxes).
User LMStone provided a lot of usefull information (thanks for that). Today I read that Zimbra is suggesting NetApp NFS in combination with vSphere instead of SAN storage for large deployments. See » Zimbra :: Blog for more information.
However the wiki says NFS is not recommended:
Source: NFS Support - Zimbra :: WikiZimbra continues to view NFS storage of other parts of the system as unsupported. Our testing has shown poor read and write performance for small files over NFS implementations, and as such we view it unlikely that this policy will change for the index and database stores. The binary database products used in ZCS such as MySQL, Berkeley DB (Sleepycat), and Lucene each have respective risks and warnings with running on NFS.
Source: Performance Tuning Guidelines for Large Deployments - Zimbra :: WikiNO NFS. It is our experience that the world is full of poor NFS implementations (server and client), and sometimes the disks backing that NFS mount are not performant to boot. Also note that many upstream OSS components of Zimbra (BDB, OpenLDAP, MySQL, Lucene) have or do discourage the use of NFS to store binary/mmaped data.
Is the combination of NetApp NFS and VMware vSphere doing some magic here to give good performance to the NFS store? What is the opinion of the Zimbra Admins of the NFS approach?
Having no experience with SANs, NFS would make things much easier for me.