Regarding costs and maintenance speed/simplicity in case of hardwar failures, does it make any sense to keep SQL data files on a NAS server, separate from the SQL Server instance? Our app stores large amounts of measurements (time-series) from many devices, so the amount of data is relatively big to keep on relatively small SAS server disks (~200GB monthly).
Although there is a greater risk of accessing files over ethernet (even if only the db server and NAS are on the same switch), having data files completely separated seems like it would simplify things in case of hardware issues due to lower coupling - the database server can be much simpler (I can migrate the simple image quickly, it can even be bundled with the application server for all simpler apps), and fixing NAS failures should also mostly involve switching disks, or switching to a copy in case of failures.
Are there some better (cost effective and faster to apply) ways to manage quick migration in case of failures which would not involve separating the data files, or is this idea not so problematic?