11–20 of 74 posts
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.
NetApp can join Sun and Oracle in the pile of great technology that was massively overpriced and oversold by short-sighted fools.
- http://www.eweek.com/servers/slideshows/oracle-continues-to-...
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/oracle/2015/03/31/how-engineered...
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.
What about Simplivity? Do you have any experience/opinion on them?
I went to a cloud dev summit a year ago and they flat out said on stage that Microsoft and Amazon were under pricing cloud to kill competition. So this is just as expected...
Who can forget the stories of Microsoft offering their browser for free in order to cut off Netscapes air supply:
Only on a Saturday would this make it to the top of HN.
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 configure. But they can't do fast(unless you are just doing small VMs), they can only do block storage, and FC is a beta product. No real HA.
Pure, Fast, but limited to 250tbs. No metrosync. Block only.
nutanix needs infrastructure upgrade to work at any decent speed. Limited to VM storage. (I think there is a licensing cost for that from VMware too. )
However that's not to say that netapp are the only show in town. They can be utterly shit for many tasks. More importantly, if you let them, they'll bleed you dry. Most people reading this, will never need a system that does block and file storage. But medium sized boring companies need them.
IBM with GPFS have an interesting product, its just marketed and supported by morons. Its fairly simple to create a global file system, with geographic data affinity, that scale linearly when you throw hardware at it. It seriously is amazing. If it wasn't so held back by IBM, you could have a simple globally shared filesystem across your entire cloud infrastructure, that's fast (unlike EBS/EFS/S3)
Object storage is another matter. Object storage is another way of saying that globally coherent fast posix file access is hard, so here's some thin layers over a keyvalue store, you do the rest.
Some people do it right (S3, cleversafe) A lot of people do it wrong. There are important tradeoffs, Like latency, data affinity, or mutability of data. Like a Netapp, no one system will do everything at the right price.
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
NetApp can join Sun and Oracle in the pile of great technology that was massively overpriced and oversold by short-sighted fools.
What are you talking about? Oracle's main goal with the Sun acquisition was to bolster their Engineered Systems business. The result so far has been quite successful: - http://www.eweek.com/servers/slideshows/oracle-continues-to-... - http://www.forbes.com/sites/oracle/2015/03/31/how-engineered...