Reply to post:

Substantial use of the word 'could'. It's OK to have some innovative thinking sometimes, but there are far too many guesses in here.

I'm not sure what problem 'server SANs' are really solving. From this article it seems that they are unable to deliver data fast enough to servers because of the network time involved in the data transfer, and so they would seem to be unsuitable for their core purpose - supplying data to apps. Suggesting that data then has to be cached in the server increases complexity just to cover the inadequacy of the chosen storage platform - chosing a fit for purpose platform is a much better solution.

I'm not a fan of big arrays, but this seems to be a retrograde step even for them. They are built for online disk replacement, multi-tiered caching, fast(ish) FC connectivity etc etc. moving to an estate of generic 2 CPU servers with a bunch of disks attached to each somehow seems a retrograde step, and IMHO for certain a maintenence nightmare.

This glosses over the real storage challenge - how the hell do we server up data fast enough to the massive amounts of CPU throughput we are seeing on even 2 CPU servers. There's no way that even a pair of 10GbE connections is going to be enough, so unless we rethink the core datacentre network (and physically upgrade) then server SAN's seem to be a solution looking for a problem.