61–70 of 74 posts
NetApp can join Sun and Oracle in the pile of great technology that was massively overpriced and oversold by short-sighted fools.
And I remember the Sun X4500 - specifically intended to be a NetApp killer: a bucketload of disk, with ZFS. Unfortunately it didn't actually work out much cheaper to buy or run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I remember the Sun X4500 - specifically intended to be a NetApp killer: a bucketload of disk, with ZFS. Unfortunately it didn't actually work out much cheaper to buy or run.
Codename Thumper. I really, really wanted to like it, but it ran like a dog for our workloads, which flew on Netapp.
I am currently struggling with NetApp support. After 2 weeks of constant effort they finally admitted of disk latency. 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…
NetApp do not add any value since Exchange do not need or actually utilise any of the features. I never used Exchange on Netapp, but aren't they supposed to have a "SnapManager for.." tool to coordinate the Exchange backups with the storage snapshot process? I was using it for SQL Server.
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
"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." Where are you getting 2 cents ? S3 is ~3 cents, glacier and nearline are 1 cents ... what are you buying that costs 2 cents ? (genuinely curious)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So successful Oracle keep missing their numbers and refuse to tell anyone how their divisions break down, leading analysts to assume it's because the hardware and OS division is a money sink.
Oracle is a massive company, mostly software; it's very hard to keep engineering growth in enterprise software given most innovation is driving prices down. Keep in mind Oracle's hardware division is a little over $5b, or 14% of their annual revenue. Not likely the reason for their problems. Most of the press has been pretty positive on how they've leveraged hardware compared to their competition (IBM, HP, Dell). [1]…
$5b is less than 2/3 as much as Sun's yearly hardware revenue in FY2009, which was substantially lower than in 2008 due to the financial apocalypse (big finance was busy trying not to go bankrupt instead of buying the best hardware money can buy).
(Unfortunately Sun's 10-K does not break out hardware revenue specifically, but was split up in "Server Products", "Storage Products", "Support Services", "Professional and Educational Services" so it's not obvious to me how the news reports back in the day got their ~$9 billion number for hardware, but at least they're consistent on that)
NetApp can join Sun and Oracle in the pile of great technology that was massively overpriced and oversold by short-sighted fools.
These companies always seem to find a niche in companies that need hardware that is 100x faster so they can write software that runs 100x slower.
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…
Yes, Netapp does CIFS alot better than the rest. But you can always setup a File server cluster and run it on any storage you want. A bit of a hassle on setup but there is an alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NetApp do not add any value since Exchange do not need or actually utilise any of the features. I never used Exchange on Netapp, but aren't they supposed to have a "SnapManager for.." tool to coordinate the Exchange backups with the storage snapshot process? I was using it for SQL Server.
Yes they do have snap manager but backups mostly keep failing. With exchange 2010 you have database, mailbox, and item level redundancy and protection so I don't actually see the value. S
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NetApp do not add any value since Exchange do not need or actually utilise any of the features. I never used Exchange on Netapp, but aren't they supposed to have a "SnapManager for.." tool to coordinate the Exchange backups with the storage snapshot process? I was using it for SQL Server.
Yes they do have snap manager but backups mostly keep failing. With exchange 2010 you have database, mailbox, and item level redundancy and protection so I don't actually see the value. S
you can have whatever redundancy you want, and maybe even lagged copies, but if you need to restore something months older, you still need backups..
As a former NetApp person this makes me sad. I really respect Robin's opinions and have been following Storage Mojo for years. That Brian Pawlowski left to join Pure[1] is perhaps the saddest thing. During my tenure there he was pretty much the heart and soul of engineering. That he left to join a company that is succeeding with a product that he was tasked with building back at NetApp [2] boggles my mind. Connecting…