Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:41:01 -0800 From: Jamie Lawrence <jal@stage1.thirdage.com> To: mjacob@feral.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates Message-ID: <4.1.19990213000333.0765d230@204.74.82.151> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902122328170.21631-100000@feral-gw> References: <199902121921.LAA06904@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I spent an absurd amount of cash on a Netapp recently.
I don't know that I chose correctly; I'm having problems.
When it works, It is frankly amazing... when not, the cost
compounds the annoyance.
>> If you need absolute reliability, I would seriously consider a NetApp.
>> I'd choose that over everything - solaris, irix, *bsd, linux, NT. You
>> name it.
>
>They're even less open than Microsoft. A newer Novell. And I know whereof
>of what I speak- I worked with a large chunk of these folks either at
>Auspex or Sun.
In some respects, I know you're right. In others, Netapp is
the shit. I'm not going to argue credentials; only performance.
I don't yet know that they're more reliable; I'm having trouble with
the multiport interface (4 100bT on a card, connected to some Solaris
boxes, to be clear on how off-topic this is).
When it does work, it is all {T|t}hey promise. I have yet to
see it balk at 5 saturated 100Bt FD connections, at least when I can
make them all work. I suspect I'm doing something wrong with mine.
I will post if that's not the case. In any case, the vast majority
of the time, the Netapp is amazingly fast and robust (if not awe
inspiring when one considers cost...).
>There are two factors being pursued- one is service goals, and the other
>is research/development/tech-transfer. If the former goal was the only
>one, *BSD/Linux would not be considered as it isn't a warrantable item.
Sure. That's why we spent a (frankly) ridiculous amount of money on
a Netapp. Support would have saved us a bundle, maybe. Real world,
right-here-right-now-we're-doing-it-today applications tend to have
nontechnical restraints imposed on them, which hurt; having technical
(non)-assurances layered on top create a barrier that no zealot can
honestly penetrate, FreeBSD or no.
I hate (will become hated) to say this, but if taking on Netapp is
a goal, there's a huge hardware requirement for the port, and then
there's probably a steep performance curve.
They do support "common" protocols, which work most anywhere. At a price.
>-matt
--j
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990213000333.0765d230>