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: DownSouth who wrote (31737)	9/16/2000 8:16:42 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

the reliability of the write cache is high enough I suppose that this is just another example of how technology keeps changing on us. For several years we have had RAID 5 salespeople claiming their units were right up there with sliced bread ... only the write-cache couldn't really be counted on and without it the write performance stunk. Then EMC comes along and finally makes a write cache one can rely on and it takes us skeptics a while to believe it. And now there is NTAP with something that really is a different beast alltogether and one needs to figure out new rules yet again! What is the capacity and price of the entry level NTAP system?

To: DownSouth who wrote (31737)	9/16/2000 8:21:31 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

NO OTHER FORM OF NFS MOUNT is supported by ANY of these companies My understanding was that the key problem with NFS was that the protocol didn't provide any confirmation from the remote system to the initiating system that a write had occurred. Performance was also marginal much of the time, but without the ability to do a synchronous write, one couldn't really depend on the integrity of the database. Do you have any idea how NTAP got past that? I thought it was in the nature of the protocol.