I like to think we have gone beyond the arguments that I saw in these foolish posts.
1. EMC and NTAP currently serve two different sets of requirements, though there is some overlap. You will find EMC and NTAP present at most major ISPs and the Fortune 500. One reason that the debates are heating up is that the battleground is often right there at the mutual NTAP/EMC customer IT departments.
2. The subject of disruptive innovation was not addressed very well. NAS is not a disruptive innovation. Dis-integration of the file system with WAFL is disurptive. NAS is simply the best architecture to host that dis-integration.
3. NTAP did not invent NAS, nor is NTAP the pioneer of NAS. That honor goes to AUSPEX. They lose, however, because they were not as innovative as NTAP, thus their performance, reliability, and cost of ownership is not compelling. BTW, the first customer battlegrounds for NTAP was in the AUSPEX customer base. NTAP almost always won, despite the fact that NTAP's first products were not as scalable as AUSPEX systems.
I am not going to be drawn into that discussion on the Fool at this point, but if anyone wishes to ask questions of one another here or grind some axes here, let's go to it. |
