Loading
Shared storage sized to actual capacity and performance needs, with a documented backup path.
Storage projects fail in two directions. Undersized, and you're buying again in eighteen months. Oversized, and you've spent capital on capacity that depreciates unused. Both come from specifying on price per terabyte rather than on workload.
We size on IOPS and throughput as well as capacity, because a virtualisation host and a file share have completely different performance profiles from the same disks.
Every deployment is designed with its restore path in mind. Storage with no tested backup is a single point of failure with a large capacity number attached.
Publishing exclusions is deliberate. Nobody in this market does it, and it's the fastest way to avoid a variation conversation later.
If yours isn't here, ask — we'd rather answer it before you buy than after.
NAS for file sharing — simpler and cheaper. SAN for block storage under virtualisation or databases where latency matters. Many sites need both, and modern units often serve both roles.
No, and this is the single most expensive misconception in storage. RAID survives disk failure. It does not survive deletion, ransomware, corruption or fire. You need a separate backup with a tested restore.
Free site survey first. You keep the findings whether or not you buy.
