<   Previous Post  2010-39- A brief...
2010-42- A brief...  Next Post:   >

Comments (1)
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

1 uhaas commented Permalink

I worked with the 7133s, changed jumpers, cabled for HA in split configurations. It was a nice little unit. (I did 9333s as well). <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> In my opinion, SanFS was great, but it sucked at the same time. It's target market was larger IT shops, but it was homogeneous. To put it another way, I had large shops that saw it, loved it, wanted to buy it, but also wanted to hook Windows, AIX, Solaris and HP/UX all up to it. SanFS supported 50% of that. By virtue of it not being heterogeneous enough, it was doomed. <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> And that is the exact reason the SVC is so powerful and cool. It truly is heterogeneous. I can use it with multiple server OSes, multiple SAN hardware vendors. If it didn't, it would probably be collecting dust the same way SanFS did. <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> I agree it was ahead of its time. If it was a complete solution, more people would have bought it. It morphed into SOFS/SONAS today, sharing some of those legacy pieces, I'm sure. <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> The only problem I have with the SVC today is the pricing is a bit steep. It's the best product on the market, but it's quickly becoming not the only product. You guys are doing a great job at innovation with the unit. I'd hate to see market share of that best product (IMHO) die by being priced out by newer cheaper solutions. (EMC woke up and realized Invista was not all that, or anything for that matter, and bought themselves something that will be something someday. Now is the time to solidify the leadership position by lowering the price a bit, or change the pricing model altogether.)