> You benchmark with the exact same configuration to highlight
> how much better your software is, that is why. You don't
> understand that...
>
> Why? NTAP's configuration is a well-known single point of failure
> design that can only support one RAID level. It also carries the
> risk of putting too many disk drives (168) behind one processor.
EMC's system configuration they benchmark with also has a single-point
of failure, two in fact:
1) RAID is turned *OFF* so there is no parity-protection for disk
data - disk dies, data dies.
2) Anything in one enclosure is a single-point-of-failure: no matter
how many processors are in the enclosure.
> Not surprisingly, you fixate on a one-dimensional speed benchmark
> that everybody, including EMC, uses as a marketing tool more than
> anything else. By the way, the different RAID levels indicate
> different type of protection schemes for different applications
> and do not indicate that one is better than the other. RAID 0 is
> the only level that does not offer any redundancy and is often used
> for multi-media applications while RAID 1 is the only level that offers
> 100% redundancy and maximum protection. Except for the IP4700 (RAID 5),
> all of EMC's boxes offer multiple RAID levels and support for multiple
> data formats.
Gus, I know what RAID is. You keep ignoring the basic question,
everyone else benchmarks with RAID *ON*, they do this because
customers generally buy systems that way. EMC does not turn
parity-protected RAID *ON* in benchmarks because their performance
with it on *IS LOUSY*. That's the answer.
> Why do you think all the NAS vendors are backpedaling furiously
> into SANs? LOL.
What I see is EMC, a SAN vendor, doing a NAS product. I see Compaq, a
SAN vendor, doing a NAS product. I see DELL, trying to everything.
If anyone is backpedaling, it's EMC, they have been saying for years
that NTAP is wrong, SAN is better than NAS, yet comes out with a
NAS product. Isn't that contradictory?
The Oracle ASP deal should be a prime example to you, that NAS can
be better than a SAN, or direct-attached storage in general. Oracle,
the leading database provider, a big EMC customer and probably the
biggest "ground-zero" for database technology has annointed the
NTAP filer as their choice for their ASP database service. What
more needs to be said?
Oh, I know what needs to be said: did you see NTAP's deal with
SAP announced today?
I'll keep repeating this stuff, maybe it'll sink in at some point.
You should spend more time thinking and less time cutting and
pasteing. |
