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: DownSouth who wrote (3238)	5/10/2000 5:46:00 PM
From: JRH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

Hi DownSouth, and welcome back! Thanks for helping me sort this out... "RAID 0+1" is not RAID at all. Though I am not sure what "0+1" means, as that is not a RAID term, it sounds like they are using Mirroring, which is very expensive and also slow, as all writes are duplicated Just to clarify, 'RAID 0+1' was the term he used to describe the mirroring and striping that their SAN device uses. While the mirroring may be expensive for writes, their application using the Filer was extremely read intensive. It does rebuild the contents of the failed drive to the new drive (which was sitting ready for use) using RAID parity techniques. Sys admin controls the amount of CPU resource allowed to be used in the rebuild. It can be as low as 10% or as high as 90%. But when requests come in for the data stored on the drive being rebuilt, doesn't the CPU have to calculate (using parity) what was supposed to be at that location? So, if you have users hammering on this NAS device (which he says they were), this could slow response and performance times, could it not? FWIW, he was very impressed with the NetApp box and said that it was an excellent product for its target market. But they apparently needed some things that the NAS couldn't offer. BWDIK! Justin, NTAP long....

To: DownSouth who wrote (3238)	5/10/2000 11:59:00 PM
From: Dr. Id	Respond to of 10934

Your friend needs to do some studying before being a part of such a decision. <snip> What your friend lost- Speed, Reliability, Simple sys admin, multi-protocol (NT/UNIX) securit, SNAPSHOT/RECOVER, addition of clustered configurations, simple growth. What your friend gained- Nothing, but probably at a higher price. This is more than just my opinion. HE'S BAAAACK!!! (And more curmudgeonly than ever!) Dr Id@nowmyNTAPcangoupagain.com

To: DownSouth who wrote (3238)	5/11/2000 12:14:00 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10934

multi-protocol (NT/UNIX) would u mind if we agreed to rephrase that to "multi OS (NT/UNIX)" ? neither NT nor Un*x is a protocol. cheers, kumar PS: Agree on your comment on miroring : the benefit of mirroring comes in "reading data" not "writing data".