Bob, according to Ron Grimm's post, HP in their press conference on the EMC subject said EMC was not addressing the concerns of their (HP's) customers.
''To reach our goals (of 100 percent data availability), we needed
a high-end product with no single points of failure. We believe the
EMC (product)... will not meet that criteria."
I searched EMC's web site and came up empty on 'no single points of failure (NSPF)', and didn't find much on RAS (reliability, availability and serviceability). What is the story? Nowadays, the above are rated equal to or above price and performance in importance to the biggest (Fortune 100) customers, for either storage or processors. Also not obvious on the EMC web page is an "ask EMC", or email EMC feature. I would have written them immediately if I saw one of these. I must admit I didn't look more than 20 minutes for all the above (should be enough, though).
EMC management has been super coming out with responses to the downgrade a while ago, and Y2K concerns. I think this allegation by HP on no NSPF is more serious than all of them because it's a slur on the product itself. I think Ruettgers needs to come out with a response, either explaining that HP is wrong, or saying what EMC is going to do about it. And it doesn't matter that EMC has grabbed the lead from IBM and is gaining. That can all reverse if they don't address what HP is talking about.
Tony |
