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 : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chris O'Connor who wrote (12037)	10/30/1997 4:43:00 PM
From: Dean Wilson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29386

Chris, I agree with your "ZERO" commentary, but concerning this statement: "The next quarter will not be as strong as this one." I would note that Ken was very consistent in using the phrase that they "currently expect" a revenue slow down in the fourth quarter, which is not the same as Ancor promising a revenue slow down. Who knows? And who knows but that new management wouldn't mind buying into the company on the open market at a low, low price? Another motive to not overstate, but maybe even understate the current state of affairs at Ancor? Who knows? But don't get me wrong. I believe that Ancor is not in good shape. It's obvious that Ancor has misstepped in the past and I've alluded to this before but when the old CEO says statements like 'we're not seceding the storage market to anyone' and 'we're coming out with the right products at the right time', investors are led to believe that there will be an immediate demand for the more storage-focused MKII. That's just not the case. Allocating the resources for the MKII wasn't Ken's idea. Who knows? Had he been with Ancor from the get go, maybe Ancor would have dabbled in the hub market (Vixel's 100 million hub OEM with Compaq looks pretty good right now, eh?) Good luck. Dean Still Long

To: Chris O'Connor who wrote (12037)	10/30/1997 9:42:00 PM
From: Kerry Lee	Respond to of 29386

<<We talk of how EDS is a champion of Class 1 FC. Result No orders from EDS>> Feel free to call this guy at your leisure: Subj: RE: Next FC-AL-3 Error SSWG - 10/21/97 Date: 97-10-29 04:41:37 EST From: DTALLU01@miahm01.miahm01.eds.com (Talluto, Dennis) Sender: owner-fc@nsco.network.com Reply-to: DTALLU01@miahm01.miahm01.eds.com (Talluto, Dennis) To: jmcgrath@cc_smtpgw.qntm.com (jmcgrath), Arlan.Stone@unisys.com (Arlan.Stone), bob.snively@eng.sun.com (bob.snively), cbinford@ppdpost.ks.symbios.com (cbinford), dal_allan@mcimail.com (dal_allan), dale_lafollette@stortek.com (dale_lafollette), dap@nsco.network.com (dap), dford@highway1.com (dford), elg@cypress.com (elg), owner-fc@anubis.network.com (owner-fc) CC: disk_attach@dt.wdc.com (disk_attach), fc@nsco.network.com (fc) Sorry for the late response, but I was on the road when this note came in..... I would like to voice my support for class 2 tape, over the option of class 3. While it has been explained to me that a class 3 implementations can be brought to market cheaper than class2, I believe that cost and expediency should not be the 'dominant' criteria for this critical design decision. I believe that data integrity, scaleability, and the appropriate and efficient use of fabric resources should be a factor of higher significance. To me, unacknowledged connectionless datagram delivery through switches does not fit the operational and performance profile of primary and secondary storage subsystems. Which brings me to my next point. Based upon numerous discussions with suppliers and industry leaders, there is a heavy assumption throughout this industry that class3 on loop is the dominant delivery mode for storage technology, especially secondary (tape). Perhaps - between small clusters (one or two compute nodes and one or two storage nodes on a private loop), or perhaps within the racks of a single storage cache controller or robotic library, class3 loop will perform satisfactorily. However, given the size and scope of our infrastructure, EDS is pursuing class1 and class2 fabric switch attached storage subsystems, both primary and secondary (many within this company are very comfortable with using ESCON Directors, the configurations afforded, and the predictable range of performance delivered - and we look to Fibre Channel to take things to the next level). The decision upon which class of service and in which configuration would be driven primarily by the available technology, benchmark performance runs, and service level agreement (SLA) contract language. The predominant characteristic pursued here is consistent and predictable performance through an expected range of operating conditions. Given the quantity of servers and storage subsystems in this infrastructure, we need the ability to mount the storage controllers on fabric switches, and to create various storage farms, but accessible from various servers, in various campus locations. I appreciate this opportunity to provide the feed back. Feel free to respond or call for clarification if necessary. Dennis Talluto EDS/Technology Management 248.853.3521 miahm01.dtallu01@eds.com