21–30 of 74 posts
Cleversafe seems to be eating NetApp's lunch.
Netapp are not growing like they should, but its not cleversafe knicking the money.
What cleversafe do that is unique is create a global encrypted, highly available, redundant namespace. If you want a fast safe redundant backup system (and don't mind using API access) then cleversafe is your goto product.
Netapp doesn't do anything similar.
There is one thing that Netapp does very well, which nobody else can really deliver: A file server that can serve over NFS & CIFS, whilst simultaneously be able to serve block traffic over FC, SAS and 10/40gig ethernet. With snapshots, decent performance, and once setup, can be left for 3 years (at which point its either too small or needs a new maintenance contract.) Nimble, they can do small, cheap and easy to conf…
I've never dealt with such completely incompetent salesmen before. Other vendors I've engaged have had salesmen relentlessly pursue me for the sale, even when it was very likely a small contract to them.
Both NetApp and IBM left me having to do the chasing. I don't mind doing that to some extent, but the amount of chasing I was having to do left a bad taste in my mouth and pretty much ensured I've no real interest in dealing with either vendor again. I wonder if companies really realise the importance of care even on small contracts. People change jobs all the time these days, and just because they are buying something small from you now, doesn't mean they're not going to be interested in something very large in the future. How you treat them will have a large impact on whether you even get a look in on something bigger.
Cleversafe seems to be eating NetApp's lunch.
Different products for different things. Netapp are not growing like they should, but its not cleversafe knicking the money. What cleversafe do that is unique is create a global encrypted, highly available, redundant namespace. If you want a fast safe redundant backup system (and don't mind using API access) then cleversafe is your goto product. Netapp doesn't do anything similar.
All I can say is that I am moving everything I can to cloud object storage from my Netapp because of 2 cents vs. $2 for GB of storage. Also Netapp wouldn't be my third chios on the next purchase of storage
So what do you do when you need fast local storage?
More digging revealed that they sold an under performing system at a inflated cost to run MS exchange 2010. NetApp do not add any value since Exchange do not need or actually utilise any of the features.
NetApp's WAFL( write anywhere) and insistence on using 4k block for disk io is the biggest design fault. Most systems nowadays uses bigger IO blocks to get more throughput with less IOPS.
Files on the disk also becomes highy files on the disk. Ironically they recommend to keep the defragmentation process turned off because there controller do not have enough comute powere to run the process in production. This is completed dishonest but very cleaver as it helps them sell more disks if customer doesn't dig deeper or don't have competence to ask right questions.
Another laughable design choice. Your size of SSD pool is very limited (12 TB on a FAS6000 series filer).
NetApp can join Sun and Oracle in the pile of great technology that was massively overpriced and oversold by short-sighted fools.
Unfortunately it didn't actually work out much cheaper to buy or run.
What I don't understand is on their flagship product, an all SSD drive array, they claim 500,000 IOPS (sustained I/O rate), yet i have heard of many people doing more than 1 million IP's/s in http and in database. If others can do a million how are they if something that is seemingly as fast as can be with an all SSD system can only do half that at a pure I/O level no less.
Nimble, Pure and Nutanix are delivering easy to use, high performance storage/compute for a fraction of the cost of EMC and Netapp. This is reason why Netapp is losing clients to Nimble, and EMC is losing to Pure. Cisco should stay on their toes with Nutanix line of Software defined hardware.
Edit: BTW Auspex had very nice hardware. But it was over-engineered and more expensive than Netapp. And snapshots on Netapp were better than anything Auspex had. So, more expensive hardware, inferior software. Not a good combination.
There is one thing that Netapp does very well, which nobody else can really deliver: A file server that can serve over NFS & CIFS, whilst simultaneously be able to serve block traffic over FC, SAS and 10/40gig ethernet. With snapshots, decent performance, and once setup, can be left for 3 years (at which point its either too small or needs a new maintenance contract.) Nimble, they can do small, cheap and easy to conf…
I spoke with both IBM and NetApp vendors several years ago, just seeking an appliance. We didn't want phenomenal capacity, but needed something with good performance. I've never dealt with such completely incompetent salesmen before. Other vendors I've engaged have had salesmen relentlessly pursue me for the sale, even when it was very likely a small contract to them. Both NetApp and IBM left me having to do the chas…