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: ganeshd who wrote (3650)	7/18/2000 8:31:16 AM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

make san's heterogeneous by being host and array independant. This will further make san architecture more popular and viable than NAS. Also, the major players will most likely have file sharing capabilities like ntap. Those are really the only two reasons you would pick a nas over a san architecture excluding price as a buying variable. Not so. NTAP's architecture dis-integrates the file system overhead and inherent inefficiencies of NFS and CIFS from the application server. NTAP's WAFL is much more efficient and much easier to administer than the native file systems. The result is more throughput, more flexible backup/restore options, and a lower cost of ownership. SANs in no way address this issue. The overhead of NFS and CIFS remains in place in all other SAN/NAS implementations except NTAP. When whatever you are eluding to occurs, get back with some details so that we can examine their file sharing capabilities. We will see if they have solved the cross-file-protocol security issues as NTAP has where a Windows host and a Unix host may be sharing the same physical file with complete security. I urge you to study NTAP's products at their web site or by asking questions here before you make these lofty claims. They sound very hollow to me.