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 : Son of SAN - Storage Networking Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KJ. Moy who wrote (3657)	7/17/2001 9:09:20 PM
From: David A. Lethe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4808

KJ: we partially agree, but when you write that "Requirements for backup, transaction journaling, are the same", then we digress. The added features which make FC technology so attractive to endusers (virtualization, clustered filesystems, SANs, switches, TBs and PBs) also make it much harder to manage. Implementing a backup strategy for a single-host attached SCSI filesystem with a few hundred GBs isn't even on the same planet as backing up and restoring terabytes on a filesystem shared by NT and UNIX boxes, for example. Think how much harder it is to do with multiple computers sharing data, and multiple applications opening files in read/write mode. With single-host attach, typical of SCSI, it is much easier to do ... almost a no-brainer for typical enduser. The VARs and SI's who think there is no difference are the ones that will have the biggest problem. There aren't a lot of cookie-cutter implementations for endusers who wish to take advantage of FC technology in the fullest. If an enduser doesn't need some of the sophisticated features of FC, then they should just stay in simple, low-cost, and easy SCSI. Also, reconsider your statement on backup. Look at how many HUNDREDS of software products that legato has for backup alone. If backup on SANs was easy, then there wouldn't be so many products. David