Haven’t blogged in a while, way too busy. Against my better judgment, I thought I’d respond to some comments I’ve seen on the blogosphere, adding one of my trademark extremely long titles. Part response, part tutorial. People with no time to read it all: Skip to the end and see if you know the answer to the question or if you have ideas on how to do such a thing.
It came to my attention that EMC is offering a 20% efficiency guarantee vs the competition (they seem to be focusing on NetApp as usual but that’s besides the point in this post). See here.
Now, I won’t go ahead and attack their guarantee. Good luck with that, more power to you etc etc. They need all the competitive edge they can get.
I come across all kinds of FUD, and some of the most ridiculous claims against NetApp regard usable space. I won’t post screenshots from competitive docs since who knows who’ll complain, but suffice it to say that one of the usual strategies against NetApp is to claim the system has something like well under 50% space efficiency using a variety of calculations, anecdotes and obsolete information. In one case, 34% usable space 🙂 Right…
It’s come to my attention that pretty much every storage manufacturer is trying to imitate NetApp’s thought leadership and keeps announcing “Unified Storage” products. Everyone can do it now, it seems 🙂
Now, this post is not going to be bashing them or claiming they don’t work.
This post is about arguing what “Unified Storage” really means. And, more importantly, whether you should care about the differences.
This is going to be another post that was inspired by sheer frustration.
It’s one thing talking to someone about adopting a totally new platform and meeting with resistance – I get it, it’s not what they’re used to, it’s new stuff, they don’t know if it will work etc. etc.