<   Previous Post  2010-20 Thanks to...
2010-34 14 weeks  Next Post:   >

Comments (4)
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

1 thestorageanarchist commented Permalink

Have yer fun, mate - you've earned it after fightin' that Rand Lover of yours. <div>&nbsp;</div> But rest assured that write-through cache is a temporary feature - full write-through while maintaining tight integration with array-based replication (and tiering) services is not far behind. <div>&nbsp;</div> And indeed, most so-called "storage virtualization features" are no longer interesting these days - folks are FAR more interested in applying the new VPLEX technologies to create distributed, open systems-based "parallel sysplex" synonymns. <div>&nbsp;</div> And no, PowerPath is not a prerequisite...as Simon Cowle says, I'm afraid you'll have to find another tune to sing if you want to stay in the competition. <div>&nbsp;</div> And since you bring it up, I can't help but to mention that IDC has confirmed that VMAX market share has more than doubled that of the USP-V in Q1, with the not-dead-yet DS8000 family pulling up lame in distant third place out of the three enterprise arrays. Seems the "cash cow" is thriving amidst lackluster competition and dead-end architectures, thank you very much! <div>&nbsp;</div> (By the by, given the congflageration of home-brewed, acquired and rebranded storage offerings that makes up IBM's portfolio, I'd say you are much more akin to The Borg than to the Real Federation...as such, you'd better watch your back - I think Oracle is out to dis-integrate your dreams of universal assimilation!)

2 orbist commented Permalink

BarryB, <div>&nbsp;</div> If thats the case, why are your exec's claiming "support is the same as SVC" - and so using SVC to provide virtualization of OEM storgage... isn't that an admission that we (IBM) got it right with SVC and despite all the years of abuse, you are admitting that when it comes to virtualizing storage, the ONLY option is SVC... ?! <div>&nbsp;</div> Meanwhile - I see not even you took up my challenge to explain what V-plex gans you?.... that says A LOT/ without saying anything at all.

3 Icewalker commented Permalink

You should be more like the Prohets, outside of time and space, able to wipe out whole fleets of Jem'Hadar with a single thought! And don't forget, the Vorta are nothing more than clones! Important to fact that we should never forget.

4 uhaas commented Permalink

I thought the same thing of VPLEX when I first saw it, a huge PowerPath investment crack pipeline with write-through cache, but it's just been whitewashed. I'm waiting for the next release. Write-through cache is just plain nothing - no benefit to in-line virtualization. I can do that with a cache-disabled VDisk. <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> The compelling feature of VPLEX, if it works, is it's supposed to be a grid-based technology. I was often perplexed that EMC had so many grid-based products, except in primary storage. SVC is still IO-group based cluster-pairs. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is yet to be seen. <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> I agree that EMC has a poor track record in storage virtualization. They haven't had a viable product that worked or gained enough traction. That may be change if they can get VPLEX to work. <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> As for VMAX beating USP-V and DS8000 sales, how can it not! EMC-loyal customers have been waiting for a real storage virtualization product for 5-6 years. They've been waiting for a new DMX for a while. There's pent up demand. They can't help be sell a bunch. IBM and HDS customers have been enjoying heterogeneous virtualization for years. Given past behavior, I'm wondering how many customers had VMAX bundled in for free to pump up market share number v. how many actually use VMAX virtualization. <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> Make no mistake, SVC is the market leader. Large enterprises have stood by proven technologies like SVC and USP-V. EMC has a long hill to climb here.