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: EJhonsa who wrote (31558)	9/13/2000 5:06:25 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

not to mention how the tests EMC used made sure that RAID protection, a feature that's nearly always used in real-life storage implementations, was turned off: Not to quibble with the bulk of what you said, but for databases which are not predominantly read-only, RAID 5, if that is what you mean, is often turned off for performance and security. Very few vendors provide a write cache that can really be relied on, although I think EMC might be the exception with the right setup. If you don't absolutely trust the write cache, you need to turn it off, and if you turn it off and run a write-intensive database against RAID 5, it is deadly slow.

To: EJhonsa who wrote (31558)	9/13/2000 8:23:52 PM
From: Apollo	Respond to of 54805

Eric, thank you for taking the time to comment on NTAP & EMC. Either EMC will blow thru the NAS segment of storage, using better equipment, or they will compete on price by giving up profits, similar to INTC and AMD. Or they will lose to NTAP as these two eventually bump heads. NTAP is clearly moving upstream, similar to what is described in CC's Innovator's Dilemma. They have announced a 12 Tb NAS system; and on a radio interview, NTAP's CEO stated the next new thing will be 24 TBs. I own them both, and will be reinforcing my Storage holdings. Apollo