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 (12197)	2/14/2001 6:29:02 PM
From: pirate_200	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17183

> 1) Mirroring protection or RAID 1 is NOT parity-based protection. > RAID 1 provides 100% redundancy. Parity-based RAID does not, I > repeat, DOES NOT provide 100% redundancy. Did I say mirroring was parity-protected? Read this statement: "This is important, because all customers that buy data storage arrays, NAS or SANs, want parity-protection. Either mirroring or some form of other RAID'd parity protection." "Either mirroring or other RAID'd parity protection". Maybe you could substitute "parity-protection" in the first sentence for "protection". I don't want to confuse you. > 2) Striping is RAID 0 so it's not, as you stubbornly insist,RAID > off. RAID 0 is the best way to measure raw speed. Since most > customers buy RAID boxes configured with multiple RAID levels > involving trade-offs between protection and speed, EMC's approach > is more reasonable. More importantly, your favorite benchmarks > only measure one dimension: speed. You are avoiding the larger > issue of why NTAP can't get its box certified for disaster-tolerance > and fault-tolerance. The "R" in RAID stands for redundancy. With RAID-0, striping, there is no redundancy of data. RAID-0 really means "the absence of RAID". Yes, "RAID-0" is the best way to measure raw speed, because you don't spend time having to copy data (mirroring) or parity-protect with computation cycles like other RAID levels. NOTE: This means, that EMC with RAID OFF (RAID-0), by your comment "the best way to measure raw speed", is worse in SPEC SFS benchmarks than NTAP's systems with RAID ON! The benchmarks also measure availability Gus, if the submitting company actually submits that way. EMC chooses to submit with RAID OFF, no redundancy, so their numbers are not the performance numbers for someone who wants a "highly available" system. NTAP, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett Packard, IBM and even Auspex, submit with RAID ON, to submit that their systems can perform WITH availability features enabled. So, if we can get a one sentence answer from you on this question: 1. Why does EMC submit SFS numbers with RAID OFF? You would say: "because it is the best way to measure raw speed"? If that's your answer, then that implies that the numbers EMC submitted are "the best they can do" which further implies that a customer who wants redundancy and performance is going to have to spend A LOT MORE MONEY to get that level of performance and redundancy with EMC products. This, by the way, renders your argument of the 20% price difference between the IP-4700 and F840 moot, since you are admitting you have to buy a lot more components (disks, processors, memory) for the IP-4700 to meet the performance of the NTAP 840.