Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (23104)	4/19/2000 11:42:00 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

FYI....EMC supposedly has a huge product annoucement on Monday. Oops...make that Tuesday. Slacker

To: slacker711 who wrote (23104)	4/20/2000 8:39:00 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

At least two people on the EMC thread who listened to EMC's conference call Tuesday reported the following: On the CC, NAS revenue was reported to be $90mm for the quarter. For comparison's sake, NTAP revenue for its most recent quarter (ending Jan '00) was $151mm. Message 13451869 Regards, Huey

To: slacker711 who wrote (23104)	5/15/2000 12:06:00 PM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Slacker, still catching up, so forgive my responding to a month-old posting. Your URL citing Eric Jhonsa was a nice find. I did find one major technical misconception in his piece, and being the nitpicker I am, must correct it: Based on what I've written so far, this is a valid argument. However, what I haven't mentioned as of yet is an innovative solution Network Appliance has come up with to address this issue. Known as clustered failover, it involves using two Netapp filers which on a day-to-day basis act completely independent of each other. Each has its own processor, operating system, and hard disks to manage, and data requests made to one filer consume none of the resources of the other. However, the disks of both filers are linked via a fibre channel connection, much like a SAN. Using SnapMirror, the primary filer (the one used for data access for employees/web users) can use this high-speed connection to send files to the secondary filer for backup, and if the disks on the primary server were to crash, this connection could be used to restore all lost data at speeds equal those that would be attained were a SAN to be used by the filer for backup. Clustered failover, of course, is also much cheaper and easier for a comapny to implement when compared to a regular SAN. Clustered failover is much simpler that what he describes. Clustered failover involves two failover partners (filers) with a high speed connection between their non-volatile RAM (NVRAM) modules where writes are cached. If one of the filers fails, the partner uses the contents of NVRAM to complete all unwritten cached writes and uses a switch fibre channel path to the partners drives to complete those writes and continue the failed server's work with no interruption. There is NO FILE COPYING involved. When the failed server is restored to operation, the partner passes work in process to the repaired partner just as transparently. What Eric described was remote mirroring, which works as he described using remote SNAPSHOT/RESTORE techniques so that filers can back one anothers' file up over long distances and be ready to take over incase of failure, though not nearly as transparently as clustered failover.