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.

Technology Stocks : Network Appliance -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JRH who wrote (3143)	4/25/2000 12:19:00 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

DS is taking some time off to work on his honeydo list for an upcoming family celebration, I believe...he should be back in a few weeks if not sooner... tb

To: JRH who wrote (3143)	4/25/2000 12:41:00 PM
From: kas1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

because of NetApp's lack of redundancy (in the drives) and lack of fault-tolerance in hardware i don't know nearly as much as ds does, but in his absence (?) here's my understanding of things: netapp filers are not only redundancy enabled, but are also hot swappable and remotely diagnosable. meaning that if a disk goes bad, the filer switches to a good disk, then sends an email to the site's netapp service rep, who comes over and swaps the bad disk with another good disk. meanwhile, no interruption of service, no downtime, no sysadmins, no headaches.

To: JRH who wrote (3143)	5/10/2000 2:37:00 PM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

Justin, NTAP filers have RAID built in, so a drive failure is soft and automatically recovered. Using clustered configurations, the entire system is duplicated by a cluster partner. If either fails, the other takes over with NO DATA LOSS. Also, note that both partners are active and working systems, not warm standbys. Your friend's company has, imo, made its storage management architecture much more complex and expensive by going to SAN. They are also losing performance and reliability. They probably did not know what they had with NTAP and bought the last sales person's line.

To: JRH who wrote (3143)	5/10/2000 3:43:00 PM
From: HDC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10934

Justin, Hi! Do you know if NetApp has replied to your friend's company's concerns about their filer versus a SAN? This redundancy issue a come up several times. The SAN guys make this claim in their attempt to unseat NTAP filers because they can't beat them in head-to-head performance. It was addressed in one of NTAP's technical papers titled "Enterprise Storage: System and Data Availability" and can be found in the technical library of their website. It's a good read and very informative. Many companies are using a combination of NAS and SAN for their websites. They are using a SAN for the database and OLTP (on-line transaction processing) and a NAS NTAP filer on the front end to handle the graphics and file portions of their web pages. A filer will certainly ease the burden on the SAN because the mundane file and graphic info requests will be handled by the filer. This will free the servers in front of the SAN to handle OLTP. Something to think about. Best, Duncan