<   Previous Post  The problems/joys/im...
Open Forum - Q & A...  Next Post:   >

Comments (28)
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

1 sholafsson commented Permalink

Barry, is it using the same generation Jasper Forest embedded Xeons as the V7000?

2 orbist commented Permalink

Hi, <div>&nbsp;</div> No, its a different Sandy Bridge Dual core'd CPU

3 Czanella commented Permalink

Barry, the EasyTier functionality with the GA or just in the next year ? It will be charged ?

4 orbist commented Permalink

Czanella, <div>&nbsp;</div> I checked the details and Easy Tier will be a licensed function in due course. <br /> FlashCopy allows 64 targets in the base product (free of license) today, and additional targets can be licensed in due course.

5 OrbitalStorage commented Permalink

Hi Folks <br /> The DS3500 talks in terms of Partitions regarding physical connections of Hosts and comes with 4 Partitions as standard which can be upgraded further as chargeable options. <div>&nbsp;</div> With v3700 is there an equivalent concept and if so what is included or what needs to be added as far as Host attach license etc ? <div>&nbsp;</div> Thanks

6 orbist commented Permalink

Good question. <div>&nbsp;</div> V3700 has no such concept, you can attach to as many hosts, and as many differnent host types as ytou like - up to the maximum 256 per system. No additional license needed.

7 sholafsson commented Permalink

I assume since SAS host ports are a future deilverable(tm), that the ports are there, (just disabled?). <br /> Why a different rear layout than the V7000?

8 orbist commented Permalink

There are 4x SAS ports as you can see, these are the new Mini-HD form factor SAS ports. 3 of them are disabled at this time, and will be enabled in due course when SAS host attach is released. The 4th is used for disk expansion. <div>&nbsp;</div> The layout is different, mainly due to the new mini-HD connections, and the new SAS chip providing the 4 ports - and the price point for the V3700 means not all users will want Fibre Channel natively on the system - hence it would be a costly additional interface to provide on every system, especially if someone only wants to use the iSCSI ports. <div>&nbsp;</div> This is a completely different controller canister to V7000, so there is no real need to keep them the same from a cosmetic point of view :)

9 StephenBaines commented Permalink

Hi Barry, if one upgrades to the 8 Gbps FC ports is it direct attached? Or do we have to go via SAN switches?

10 orbist commented Permalink

As of 6.4.1 code level (which all V3700 will run from day 1) all family products support direct FC attach for RH 6.1 and SLES 11 - with Windows and VMware is almost complete in testing, and so should be available very soon. <div>&nbsp;</div> If you have a specific requirement you can always submit an RPQ (SCORE) request.

11 OrbitalStorage commented Permalink

Hi <br /> I see you have covered compatibility for Vmware in the last post but this was based on FC attach. <div>&nbsp;</div> Is there any view for v3700 iSCSI being on the Vmware HCL this year. <div>&nbsp;</div> I remember 4+ years ago the DS3300 was very late in getting on the HCL and choked a lot of sales ...at least here in NZ. <div>&nbsp;</div> Thanks

12 J8J5_Vladimir_Prohorov commented Permalink

Would V3700 have ODX/VAAI compartibility? Would it have ability to be managed via SMI-S and Microsoft SC VMM?

13 orbist commented Permalink

Oribtal / Vladimir, <div>&nbsp;</div> Supported things .... <div>&nbsp;</div> Today : VAAI and SMI-S management <br /> Working on for qualifcation / support statements ASAP : VMware iSCSI HCL, ODX, MS SC VMM <br />

14 vtokarev commented Permalink

Hello! <br /> Is it possible to connect Storwize V3700 Expansion Enclosures to the Storwize V7000 Control Enclosure? Is it supported?

15 orbist commented Permalink

Hi, you cannot intermix V3700 and V7000 expansion enclosures in either system. <div>&nbsp;</div> They use physically different SAS ports, the V7000 uses mini-SAS cables / connectors and the V3700 uses the new mini-SAS HD cables/connectors. <div>&nbsp;</div>

16 dszubert commented Permalink

Hi Barry, I found this comparison table on a the site of an IBM distributor (I believe). <div>&nbsp;</div> http://content.sdgroup.eu.com/isi/ibm/2012_11_06_IBM_V3700_comparison.htm <div>&nbsp;</div> Are the first two rows of the table correct?

17 orbist commented Permalink

Yes and No. <div>&nbsp;</div> 1st Line - V3700 is licensed as machine code - rather than software. Subtle licensing difference, so all references to the SVC software in V3700 is "machine code" <div>&nbsp;</div> 2nd Line - We only support dual canister mode <div>&nbsp;</div> 3rd Line - We don't yet support SAS host

18 spriva commented Permalink

Hi Barry, <br /> It looks like a great entry level machine. However, 4 expansion enclosures, for a customer needs to mix SAS and LFF NL-SAS drives, it is a little bit too small. Is a support for more than 4 enclosures planned and/or scale out like in the v7000? <br /> Thanks <br /> Shai

19 Steven_Avnet commented Permalink

Barry, does the v3700 support Direct Access for Microsoft and/or VMware based machines?

20 JoséMiguel commented Permalink

Barry guess it's been sometime since the release of the v3700 and you posted this. <div>&nbsp;</div> I received shipment of my v3700 a few weeks ago and today I got down to benchmarking it. <div>&nbsp;</div> I compared this unit against a few diferent scenarios using HDTach. <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> My unit is the simple off the shelf v3700 with 8 600GB 10krpm SAS 2.5" disks. <div>&nbsp;</div> The two scenarios are the local attached storage (146GB 10krpm SAS), and an Oracle 7310 unit. <div>&nbsp;</div> the SAS disks can yield upwards of 150MBps throughput. The Oracle unit gives about 90MBps. <div>&nbsp;</div> the V3700 just breaks 50MBps. this is aweful! 50MBps for this thing is hardly anything to brag about. If you buy the off the shelf unit all you can expect of it is a decent place to throw backups into. I was expecting to dedicate this thing to an SQL server by way of presenting the disks by iSCSI. <div>&nbsp;</div> is this consistent with your findings? do you have any tips to getting this throughput up to the 100's? <div>&nbsp;</div> Thank you! <br />