From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Feb 13 00:41:13 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA12741 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:41:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from stage1.thirdage.com (stage1.thirdage.com [204.74.82.151]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA12736 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:41:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jal@thirdage.com) Received: from gigi (gigi.thirdage.com [204.74.82.169]) by stage1.thirdage.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id AAA03389; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:40:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990213000333.0765d230@204.74.82.151> X-Sender: jal@204.74.82.151 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:41:01 -0800 To: mjacob@feral.com From: Jamie Lawrence Subject: Re: softupdates Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <199902121921.LAA06904@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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