On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, matthew patton wrote:
Of the "we force you to buy our overinflated drives" camp, Dell is
the cheapest but also the most inefficient by far on power/space.
The HP puts 70 disks in 4U. NexSan 42, and Sun 48. The clear winner
here is HP.
What is the performance like with H
For those who are interested in some of the options out there.
DIY DAS:
Supermicro 36 bay case - $1800
Promise 16 bay JBOD VTrak J610sD - $3700
Promise VTE610sD - $7500 (SAS attached head unit with onboard raid controllers,
takes JBOD expansion)
The following apply to 1TB SATA drive configuratio
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Al Hopper wrote:
> There's your first mistake. You're probably eligible for a very nice
> Federal Systems discount. My *guess* would be about 40%.
Promise JBOD and similar systems are often the only affordable choice
for those of us who can't get sweetheart dis
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:55 PM, matthew patton wrote:
. snip
> Enter the J4500, 48 drives in 4U, what looks to be solid engineering, and
> redundancy in all the right places. An empty chassis at $3000 is totally
> justifiable. Maybe as high as $4000. In comparison a naked Dell MD1000
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Dan Pritts wrote:
> I've been considering it, but I talked to a colleague at another
> institution who had some really awful tales to tell about promise
> FC arrays. They were clearly not ready for prime time.
>
> OTOH a SAS jbod is a lot less complicated.
We hav
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 03:44:02PM -0600, Wes Felter wrote:
> Have you considered Promise JBODs? They officially support
> bring-your-own-drives.
Have you used these yourself, Wes?
I've been considering it, but I talked to a colleague at another
institution who had some really awful tales to tel
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:37:46PM -0500, rwali...@washdcmail.com wrote:
> I don't disagree with any of the facts you list, but I don't think the
> alternatives are fully described by "Sun vs. much cheaper retail parts."
>
> We face exactly this same decision with buying RAM for our servers
> (ma
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 11:16:44PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> >no one is selling disk brackets without disks. not Dell, not EMC, not
> >NetApp, not IBM, not HP, not Fujitsu, ...
>
> http://discountechnology.com/Products/SCSI-Hard-Drive-Caddies-Trays
I don't see why we have to hunt down rand
On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:55 PM, matthew patton wrote:
>> It might help people to understand how ridiculous they
>> sound going on and on
>> about buying a premium storage appliance without any
>> storage.
>
> Since I started this, let me explain to those who can't begin to understand
> why I propose
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:55 PM, matthew patton wrote:
>
> The cheapest solution out there that isn't a Supermicro-like server
>> chassis, is DAS in the form of HP or Dell MD-series which top out at 15 or
>> 16 3" drives. I can only chain 3 units
On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:55 PM, matthew patton wrote:
The cheapest solution out there that isn't a Supermicro-like server
chassis, is DAS in the form of HP or Dell MD-series which top out at
15 or 16 3" drives. I can only chain 3 units per SAS port off a HBA
in either case.
The new Dell MD11
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 09:33:12PM -0500, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>> > This is a far cry from an apples to apples comparison though.
>>
>> As much as I'm no fan of Apple, it's a pity they dropped ZFS because
>> that would have brought consid
matthew patton wrote:
> > It might help people to understand how ridiculous they
> > sound going on and on
> > about buying a premium storage appliance without any
> > storage.
>
> Since I started this, let me explain to those who can't begin to understand
> why I proposed something so "stupid".
"Eric D. Mudama" writes:
> On Tue, Feb 9 at 2:36, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>> no one is selling disk brackets without disks. not Dell, not EMC,
>> not NetApp, not IBM, not HP, not Fujitsu, ...
>
> http://discountechnology.com/Products/SCSI-Hard-Drive-Caddies-Trays
very nice, thanks. unfort
On Tue, Feb 9 at 2:36, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
Daniel Carosone writes:
In that context, I haven't seen an answer, just a conclusion:
- All else is not equal, so I give my money to some other hardware
manufacturer, and get frustrated that Sun "won't let me" buy the
parts I could u
Have you considered Promise JBODs? They officially support
bring-your-own-drives.
Wes Felter
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Frank Cusack
wrote:
>
> I assume you are responding to my comment and not Toby's. Did you try
> to drill down past the front page? To look at the specs for ANY server?
> I just thought it was much more difficult to look at and compare specs
> than it was on Sun's
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Frank Cusack wrote:
I assume you are responding to my comment and not Toby's. Did you try
to drill down past the front page? To look at the specs for ANY server?
I just thought it was much more difficult to look at and compare specs
than it was on Sun's site. Turns out you
On 2/9/10 5:19 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Toby Thain
wrote:
On 9-Feb-10, at 2:02 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On 2/9/10 12:03 PM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote:>
Snorcle wants to sell hardware.
LOL ... snorcle
But apparently they don't. Have you seen the new we
> Since I started this, let me explain to those who can't begin to understand
> why I proposed something so "stupid". At work (branch of a federal gov't
> big-5 Department) I need 40TB but have next to nothing in budget. (For some
> reason all you damn citizens think you're entitled to keep most of
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Daniel Bakken wrote:
From my perspective as an IT pro, Sun is selling BMW's at $200k. It's
a great car, but a Mercedes is half the cost. Most hardware consumers
have already flocked to the competition, which explains Sun's
staggering losses and the Oracle buyout. We can't aff
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 9-Feb-10, at 2:02 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
>
> On 2/9/10 12:03 PM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote:>
>>
>>> Snorcle wants to sell hardware.
>>>
>>
>> LOL ... snorcle
>>
>> But apparently they don't. Have you seen the new website? Seems like a
On Feb 8, 2010, at 20:03, Daniel Carosone wrote:
Snorcle wants to sell hardware.
Larry Ellison wants Oracle to be a "systems" company, a la T. J.
Watson Jr.'s IBM and Cisco:
"We are not going into the hardware business. We have no interest in
the hardware business. We have a deep interes
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Bottom line here: if someone comes along and provides the same level of
> service for a better price, the market will flock to them. Or if the market
> decides the current level of service is unnecessary, it will move to vendors
> providing t
matthew patton wrote:
It might help people to understand how ridiculous they
sound going on and on
about buying a premium storage appliance without any
storage.
Since I started this, let me explain to those who can't begin to understand why I proposed
something so "stupid". At work (branc
On 9-Feb-10, at 2:02 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On 2/9/10 12:03 PM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote:>
Snorcle wants to sell hardware.
LOL ... snorcle
But apparently they don't. Have you seen the new website? Seems
like a
blatant attempt to kill the hardware business to me.
That's very sad.
On 2/9/10 12:03 PM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote:>
Snorcle wants to sell hardware.
LOL ... snorcle
But apparently they don't. Have you seen the new website? Seems like a
blatant attempt to kill the hardware business to me.
___
zfs-discuss mailing li
> It might help people to understand how ridiculous they
> sound going on and on
> about buying a premium storage appliance without any
> storage.
Since I started this, let me explain to those who can't begin to understand why
I proposed something so "stupid". At work (branch of a federal gov't b
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 09:33:12PM -0500, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> > This is a far cry from an apples to apples comparison though.
>
> As much as I'm no fan of Apple, it's a pity they dropped ZFS because
> that would have brought considerable attention to the opportunity of
> marketing and offerin
> > Although I am in full support of what sun is doing, to play devils
> > advocate: supermicro is.
They're not the only ones, although the most-often discussed here.
Dell will generally sell hardware and warranty and service add-ons in
any combination, to anyone willing and capable of figurin
Tim Cook wrote:
On Monday, February 8, 2010, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
Daniel Carosone writes:
In that context, I haven't seen an answer, just a conclusion:
- All else is not equal, so I give my money to some other hardware
manufacturer, and get frustrated that Sun "won't let
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On Monday, February 8, 2010, Kjetil Torgrim Homme
> wrote:
> > Daniel Carosone writes:
> >
> >> In that context, I haven't seen an answer, just a conclusion:
> >>
> >> - All else is not equal, so I give my money to some other hardware
> >>m
On Monday, February 8, 2010, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> Daniel Carosone writes:
>
>> In that context, I haven't seen an answer, just a conclusion:
>>
>> - All else is not equal, so I give my money to some other hardware
>> manufacturer, and get frustrated that Sun "won't let me" buy the
>>
Just like i said way earlier, The entire idea is like asking to buy a
Ferrari without the aluminum wheels they sell because you think they are
charging too much for them, after all, aluminum is cheap.
It's just not done that way. There are OTHER OPTIONS for people who can't
afford it. You reall
Daniel Carosone writes:
> In that context, I haven't seen an answer, just a conclusion:
>
> - All else is not equal, so I give my money to some other hardware
>manufacturer, and get frustrated that Sun "won't let me" buy the
>parts I could use effectively and comfortably.
no one is s
This is a long thread, with lots of interesting and valid observations
about the organisation of the industry, the segmentation of the
market, getting what you pay for vs paying for what you want, etc.
I don't really find within, however, an answer to the original
question, at least the way I re
On 2/8/10 12:49 AM -0200 Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
I think the industry is in a sad state when you buy enterprise-level
drives and they don't work as expected (see that thread about TLER
settings on WD enterprise drives) that you have to spend extra on drives
that got reviewed by a third-party (Sun
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote:
> I believe magical unicorn controllers and drives are both bug-free and
> 100% spec compliant. The leprichorns sell them if you're trying to
> find them ;)
>
Well, "perfect" and "bug free" sure don't exist in our industry.
The problem is tha
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> It's called spreading the costs around. Would you really rather pay 10x
> the price on everything else besides the drives? This is essentially Sun's
> way of tiered pricing. Rather than charge you a software fee based on how
> much storage yo
On 2 feb 2010, at 16.26, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> I'm pretty doubtful that the hardware differs from what I can buy from
> Newegg or whatever *IF* I buy the same enterprise-grade drive model (WD
> S25 or RE-4, say, rather than Caviar Blue) (I don't know what WD drives,
> if any, are currently q
Tim Cook writes:
> Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>>I don't know what the J4500 drive sled contains, but for the J4200
>>and J4400 they need to include quite a bit of circuitry to handle
>>SAS protocol all the way, for multipathing and to be able to
>>accept a mix of SAS and SATA dri
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> matthew patton writes:
>
> > true. but I buy a Ferrari for the engine and bodywork and chassis
> > engineering. It is totally criminal what Sun/EMC/Dell/Netapp do
> > charging customers 10x the open-market rate for standard drives. A
>
On 2/6/10 4:51 PM +0100 Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
the pricing does look strange, and I think it would be better to raise
the price of the enclosure (which is silly cheap when empty IMHO) and
reduce the drive prices somewhat. but that's just psychology, and
doesn't really matter for total cost.
matthew patton writes:
> true. but I buy a Ferrari for the engine and bodywork and chassis
> engineering. It is totally criminal what Sun/EMC/Dell/Netapp do
> charging customers 10x the open-market rate for standard drives. A
> RE3/4 or NS drive is the same damn thing no matter if I buy it from
>
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:02:21PM -0800, Brandon High wrote:
> Another solution, for a true DIY x4500: BackBlaze has schematics for
> the 45 drive chassis that they designed available on their website.
> http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/
Brandon High wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:13 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Which is to say that 45 drives is really quite a lot for a HOME NAS.
Particularly when you then think about backing up that data.
The origin of this thread was how to buy a J4500 (48 drive chassis).
One thin
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:13 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Which is to say that 45 drives is really quite a lot for a HOME NAS.
> Particularly when you then think about backing up that data.
The origin of this thread was how to buy a J4500 (48 drive chassis).
One thing that I enjoy about this li
On Wed, February 3, 2010 17:02, Brandon High wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:58 PM, matthew patton wrote:
>> what with the home NAS conversations, what's the trick to buy a J4500
>> without any drives? SUN like every other "enterprise" storage vendor
>> thinks it's ok to rape their customers an
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:58 PM, matthew patton wrote:
> what with the home NAS conversations, what's the trick to buy a J4500 without
> any drives? SUN like every other "enterprise" storage vendor thinks it's ok
> to rape their customers and I for one, am not interested in paying 10x for a
> si
On 2-Feb-10, at 10:11 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Toby Thain
wrote:
On 2-Feb-10, at 1:54 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
100% uptime for 20 years?
So what makes OpenVMS so much more stable than Unix? What is the
difference?
The short answer is that uptimes lik
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
> When I was first in the industry, in 1969, it was fairly normal to only be
> able to connect DEC disks to a PDP-11; but even then there were
> third-party manufacturers making products and customers buying them. Now,
> forty years down the road, computers are constr
>
> This seems to miss the point. I presented an argument for why I think the
> qualified drives are a huge profit-center, not just making a reasonable
> profit on the work of qualification.
>
> In general, I'd much rather pay reasonable costs for each piece, rather
> than weird costs artificially
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 2-Feb-10, at 1:54 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
>
> 100% uptime for 20 years?
>>
>> So what makes OpenVMS so much more stable than Unix? What is the
>> difference?
>>
>
>
> The short answer is that uptimes like that are VMS *cluster* uptimes.
>
On 2-Feb-10, at 1:54 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
100% uptime for 20 years?
So what makes OpenVMS so much more stable than Unix? What is the
difference?
The short answer is that uptimes like that are VMS *cluster* uptimes.
Individual hosts don't necessarily have that uptime, but the cluster
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Miles Nordin wrote:
"fc" == Frank Cusack writes:
fc> by FCoE are you talking about iSCSI?
FCoE is an L2 design where ethernet ``pause'' frames can be sent
specific to one of the seven CoS levels instead of applying to the
entire port, which makes PAUSE abuseable for ot
> "fc" == Frank Cusack writes:
fc> by FCoE are you talking about iSCSI?
FCoE is an L2 design where ethernet ``pause'' frames can be sent
specific to one of the seven CoS levels instead of applying to the
entire port, which makes PAUSE abuseable for other purposes than their
former one.
I believe magical unicorn controllers and drives are both bug-free and
100% spec compliant. The leprichorns sell them if you're trying to
find them ;)
-marc
On 2/2/10, David Magda wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 15:21, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>> How exactly do you suggest the drive manufacturers make thei
On Feb 2, 2010, at 2:56 PM, David Magda wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 15:17, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
>>
>>> 100% uptime for 20 years?
>>>
>>> So what makes OpenVMS so much more stable than Unix? What is the
>>> difference?
>>>
>>
>> They had/h
On Feb 2, 2010, at 15:21, Tim Cook wrote:
How exactly do you suggest the drive manufacturers make their drives
"just
work" with every SAS/SATA controller on the market, and all of the
quirks
they have? You're essentially saying you want the drive
manufacturers to do
what the storage vendor
On Feb 2, 2010, at 15:17, Tim Cook wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
100% uptime for 20 years?
So what makes OpenVMS so much more stable than Unix? What is the
difference?
They had/have clustering software that was/is bulletproof. I don't
think
anyone in the U
On Feb 2, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On February 2, 2010 4:31:47 PM -0500 Miles Nordin wrote:
>> and FCoE is just dumb if you have IB, honestly.
>
> by FCoE are you talking about iSCSI?
FCoE is to iSCSI as Netware (IPX/SPX) is to NFS :-)
-- richard
__
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Frank Cusack wrote:
On February 2, 2010 4:31:47 PM -0500 Miles Nordin wrote:
and FCoE is just dumb if you have IB, honestly.
by FCoE are you talking about iSCSI?
No. They are different. FCoE uses "raw" ethernet packets and
ethernet switches can/should be specially d
On February 2, 2010 4:31:47 PM -0500 Miles Nordin wrote:
and FCoE is just dumb if you have IB, honestly.
by FCoE are you talking about iSCSI?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-d
On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
> 100% uptime for 20 years?
>
> So what makes OpenVMS so much more stable than Unix? What is the difference?
Software reliability studies show that the more reliable software is
old software that hasn't changed :-)
On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:42 PM, D
> "bh" == Brandon High writes:
> "ok" == Orvar Korvar writes:
> "mp" == matthew patton writes:
bh> This one holds "only" 24 drives:
bh> http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/846/SC846TQ-R900.cfm
bh> ($950)
This one holds only 20 drives. includes fan, not power
On February 2, 2010 2:17:30 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/vms_vs_unix.html
interesting page, if somewhat dated. e.g. maybe it wasn't true at the
time but don't we now know from the SCO lawsuit that SCO does indeed
own "UNIX"?
as long as we're OT. :)
_
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Peter Jeremy <
peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>
> OTOH, if I'm paying 10x the street drive price upfront, plus roughly
> the street price annually in "support", I can save a fair amount of
> money by just buying a pile of spare drives - when one fails, just
On 2010-Feb-03 00:12:43 +0800, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>> Now, I'm sure not ALL drives offered at Newegg could qualify; but the
>> question is, how much do I give up by buying an enterprise-grade drive
>> from a major manufacturer, compared to the S
On Tue, February 2, 2010 14:21, Tim Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:14 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, February 2, 2010 11:26, Richard Elling wrote:
>> > On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:49 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> >> On Tue, February 2, 2010 10:21, Marc Nicholas wrote:
>> >>> I ag
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:14 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> On Tue, February 2, 2010 11:26, Richard Elling wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:49 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >> On Tue, February 2, 2010 10:21, Marc Nicholas wrote:
> >>> I agree wholeheartedlyyou're paying to make the problem "
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Orvar Korvar <
knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 100% uptime for 20 years?
>
> So what makes OpenVMS so much more stable than Unix? What is the
> difference?
>
>
>
They had/have clustering software that was/is bulletproof. I don't think
anyone in the Unix c
On Tue, February 2, 2010 11:26, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:49 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> On Tue, February 2, 2010 10:21, Marc Nicholas wrote:
>>> I agree wholeheartedlyyou're paying to make the problem "go away"
>>> in
>>> an
>>> expedient manner. That said, I see how mu
1) SAS HBA seems to be an I/O card which has SAS cable connection. It sits in
the OSol server. It is basically just a simple I/O card, right? I hope these
cards are cheap?
2) So I can buy a disk chassi with 24 disks, connect all disks to one SAS cable
and connect that SAS cable to my OSol serv
Also, both of those chassis come in SAS expander version and JBOD. the SAS
expander version is the E1 version of the case. With the SAS Expander, and a
motherboard using the LSI2008 or LSI1068 chipset, you can attach one cable from
the SAS port (SFF8087) to the SAS expander and have all the dr
100% uptime for 20 years?
So what makes OpenVMS so much more stable than Unix? What is the difference?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs
On February 2, 2010 12:08:13 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote:
Not exactly unix, but there's still VMS clusters running around out there
with 100% uptime for over 20 years. I wouldn't mind seeing it opened up.
Agreed, I'd love to see that opened up. Might even give it new life.
__
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Orvar Korvar
wrote:
> I see 24 drives in an external chassi. I presume that chassis does only hold
> drives, it does not hold a motherboard.
>
> How do you connect all drives to your OpenSolaris server? Do you place them
> next to each other, and then you have thr
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Frank Cusack
wrote:
> On February 2, 2010 11:58:17 AM -0600 Tim Cook wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Frank Cusack
>> wrote:
>>
>> On February 2, 2010 8:57:32 AM -0800 Orvar Korvar <
>>> knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I love that Sun
On February 2, 2010 11:58:17 AM -0600 Tim Cook wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Frank Cusack
wrote:
On February 2, 2010 8:57:32 AM -0800 Orvar Korvar <
knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I love that Sun shares their products for free. Which other big Unix
vendor does that?
Who'
* On 02 Feb 2010, Orvar Korvar wrote:
> Ok, I see that the chassi contains a mother board. So never mind that
> question.
>
> Another q: Is it possible to have large chassi with lots of drives,
> and the opensolaris in another chassi, how do you connect them both?
The J4500 and most other storage
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Frank Cusack
wrote:
> On February 2, 2010 8:57:32 AM -0800 Orvar Korvar <
> knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I love that Sun shares their products for free. Which other big Unix
>> vendor does that?
>>
>
> Who's left?
>
>
Pretty sure HP and IBM are still
On February 2, 2010 8:57:32 AM -0800 Orvar Korvar
wrote:
I love that Sun shares their products for free. Which other big Unix
vendor does that?
Who's left?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/l
On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:49 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On Tue, February 2, 2010 10:21, Marc Nicholas wrote:
>> I agree wholeheartedlyyou're paying to make the problem "go away" in
>> an
>> expedient manner. That said, I see how much we spend on NetApp storage at
>> work and it makes me shudder
This reminds me of this attorney that charged very much for a contract template
he copied and gave to a client. To that, he responded:
-You dont pay for me finding this template and copying to you, which took me 5
minutes. You pay me because I sat 5 years in the university, and have 15 years
of
On Tue, February 2, 2010 10:21, Marc Nicholas wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedlyyou're paying to make the problem "go away" in
> an
> expedient manner. That said, I see how much we spend on NetApp storage at
> work and it makes me shudder ;)
Yes, exactly. Pricing must be about right, people win
Marc Nicholas wrote:
> I think someone was wondering if the large storage vendors have their own
> microcode on drives? I can tell you that NetApp do...and that's one way they
> "lock you in" (if the drive doesn't report NetApp firmware, the filer will
> "reject" the drive) and also how they do t
I agree wholeheartedlyyou're paying to make the problem "go away" in an
expedient manner. That said, I see how much we spend on NetApp storage at
work and it makes me shudder ;)
I think someone was wondering if the large storage vendors have their own
microcode on drives? I can tell you that N
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Now, I'm sure not ALL drives offered at Newegg could qualify; but the
question is, how much do I give up by buying an enterprise-grade drive
from a major manufacturer, compared to the Sun-certified drive?
If you have a Sun service contract, you give
On Tue, February 2, 2010 09:58, Tim Cook wrote:
> It's called spreading the costs around. Would you really rather pay 10x
> the price on everything else besides the drives?
This seems to miss the point. I presented an argument for why I think the
qualified drives are a huge profit-center, not
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:45 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> On Tue, February 2, 2010 01:27, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> > Except you think the original engineering is just a couple grand, and
> > that's
> > where you're wrong. I hate the prices just as much as the next guy, but
> > they do in fact need
On Tue, February 2, 2010 01:27, Tim Cook wrote:
> Except you think the original engineering is just a couple grand, and
> that's
> where you're wrong. I hate the prices just as much as the next guy, but
> they do in fact need to feed their families. In fact, they need to do a
> hell of a lot mo
On Tue, February 2, 2010 01:26, James C. McPherson wrote:
> The engineering ratings are different to what you can buy from
> your local corner PC store, and the firmware is different. The
> qualification is done with the assumption that the disks will be
> spinning every single second for a numbe
> true. but I buy a Ferrari for the engine and bodywork and chassis
> engineering. It is totally criminal what Sun/EMC/Dell/Netapp do charging
its interesting to read this with another thread containing:
> timeout issue is definitely the WD10EARS disks.
> replaced 24 of them with ST32000542AS (f
On Tue, February 2, 2010 02:24, matthew patton wrote:
> true. but I buy a Ferrari for the engine and bodywork and chassis
> engineering. It is totally criminal what Sun/EMC/Dell/Netapp do charging
> customers 10x the open-market rate for standard drives. A RE3/4 or NS
> drive is the same damn thin
Ok, I see that the chassi contains a mother board. So never mind that question.
Another q:
Is it possible to have large chassi with lots of drives, and the opensolaris in
another chassi, how do you connect them both?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
A dumb question:
I see 24 drives in an external chassi. I presume that chassis does only hold
drives, it does not hold a motherboard.
How do you connect all drives to your OpenSolaris server? Do you place them
next to each other, and then you have three 8 SATA ports in your OpenSolaris
server
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:58 PM, matthew patton wrote:
> what with the home NAS conversations, what's the trick to buy a J4500 without
> any drives? SUN like every other "enterprise" storage vendor thinks it's ok
> to rape their customers and I for one, am not interested in paying 10x for a
> si
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:17 AM, matthew patton wrote:
>
> > charge a premium for their products but they ARE a
> > enterprise vendor. You
> > wouldn't say something like "hey, where can i buy a Ferrari
> > without any
> > wheels...i'm not paying x amount for a silly aluminum
> > wheel"
>
> true.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:17 AM, matthew patton wrote:
>
> > charge a premium for their products but they ARE a
> > enterprise vendor. You
> > wouldn't say something like "hey, where can i buy a Ferrari
> > without any
> > wheels...i'm not paying x amount for a silly aluminum
> > wheel"
>
> true.
On 2/02/10 05:17 PM, matthew patton wrote:
charge a premium for their products but they ARE a
enterprise vendor. You
wouldn't say something like "hey, where can i buy a Ferrari
without any
wheels...i'm not paying x amount for a silly aluminum
wheel"
true. but I buy a Ferrari for the engine
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
