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 : EMC How high can it go? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gus who wrote (12183)	2/13/2001 4:55:50 PM
From: Joseph Ziebarth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

Gus, seem's to me that the Napster court decision has put a strain on one part of the future storage market. The expected storage of books, music and films may be in doubt for a while as copyright laws are sorted out.

To: Gus who wrote (12183)	2/13/2001 5:00:52 PM
From: VFD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

Gus, You are the reason I occasionally log on to the SI threads. You sure impress the heck out of me every time I read one of your messages. I am glad you are in my side.

To: Gus who wrote (12183)	2/14/2001 1:28:23 AM
From: pirate_200	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

> You benchmark with the exact same configuration to highlight > how much better your software is, that is why. You don't > understand that... > > Why? NTAP's configuration is a well-known single point of failure > design that can only support one RAID level. It also carries the > risk of putting too many disk drives (168) behind one processor. EMC's system configuration they benchmark with also has a single-point of failure, two in fact: 1) RAID is turned OFF so there is no parity-protection for disk data - disk dies, data dies. 2) Anything in one enclosure is a single-point-of-failure: no matter how many processors are in the enclosure. > Not surprisingly, you fixate on a one-dimensional speed benchmark > that everybody, including EMC, uses as a marketing tool more than > anything else. By the way, the different RAID levels indicate > different type of protection schemes for different applications > and do not indicate that one is better than the other. RAID 0 is > the only level that does not offer any redundancy and is often used > for multi-media applications while RAID 1 is the only level that offers > 100% redundancy and maximum protection. Except for the IP4700 (RAID 5), > all of EMC's boxes offer multiple RAID levels and support for multiple > data formats. Gus, I know what RAID is. You keep ignoring the basic question, everyone else benchmarks with RAID ON, they do this because customers generally buy systems that way. EMC does not turn parity-protected RAID ON in benchmarks because their performance with it on IS LOUSY. That's the answer. > Why do you think all the NAS vendors are backpedaling furiously > into SANs? LOL. What I see is EMC, a SAN vendor, doing a NAS product. I see Compaq, a SAN vendor, doing a NAS product. I see DELL, trying to everything. If anyone is backpedaling, it's EMC, they have been saying for years that NTAP is wrong, SAN is better than NAS, yet comes out with a NAS product. Isn't that contradictory? The Oracle ASP deal should be a prime example to you, that NAS can be better than a SAN, or direct-attached storage in general. Oracle, the leading database provider, a big EMC customer and probably the biggest "ground-zero" for database technology has annointed the NTAP filer as their choice for their ASP database service. What more needs to be said? Oh, I know what needs to be said: did you see NTAP's deal with SAP announced today? I'll keep repeating this stuff, maybe it'll sink in at some point. You should spend more time thinking and less time cutting and pasteing.