On 9/20/07 7:31 PM, "Paul B. Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
>
>> It's an IBM re-branded NetApp which can which we are using for NFS and
>> iSCSI.
Yeah its fun to see IBM compete with its OEM provider Netapp.
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> Is it comparable storage though? Does it use SATA drives similar to the
> x4500, or more expensive/higher performance FC drives? Is it one of the
> models that allows connecting dual clustered heads and failing over the
> storage between them?
>
> I agree the x4500 is a sweet looking box, but when making price comparisons
> sometimes it's more than just the raw storage... I wish I could just drop
> in a couple of x4500's and not have to worry about the complexity of
> clustering <sigh>...
>
>
zfs send/receive.
Netapp is great, we have about 6 varieties in production here. But what I
pay in maintenance and up front cost on just 2 filers, I can buy a x4500 a
year, and have a 3 year warranty each time I buy. It just depends on the
company you work for.
I haven't played too much with anything but netapp and storagetek.. But once
I got started on zfs I just knew it was the future; and I think netapp
realizes that too. And if apple does what I think it will, it will only get
better :)
Fast, Cheap, Easy - you only get 2. Zfs may change that.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
