We have them in Las Vegas, too: http://www.lawyers.com/find_a_lawyer/search/results.php?searchtype=Q&new search=Y&prevpageid=00000&personalaop=769-912&personalterm=&businessaop= 0&businessterm=&city=las+vegas&county=&state=30&x=37&y=0
William -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Quinn Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions We have sharks here to - see http://www.blueplanetaquarium.com/blue/blue_sharks.html for details Chris Quinn IT Manager Blue Planet Aquarium -----Original Message----- From: Exchange (Swynk) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 December 2002 18:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the IBM Shark We have a Shark here and found that it is CRAP when it comes to I/O intensive Win32 applications. Someone here got the bright idea to have an enterprise-wide SAN solution, instead of looking at it from the perspective of how each platform actually works .... the Shark works great for legacy (i.e. IBM) systems, and works marginally well for NT file servers, but try sticking a large SQL database on there and watch what happens. Of all the SANs out there (at least 18 months ago when ours was purchased), the Shark was one of the most expensive, and one of the slowest. It may not be the same with newer Sharks, but ours is a slow-as-hell drive technology that choked whenever we tested SQL databases and Exchange 5.5 on it. We have found that Compaq's SAN solution works well for our environment -- it's almost half the price of comparable storage on the Shark, and much much faster. Since we're an all-Compaq shop for our Win32 systems, that's what we're moving to now. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Friday, December 06, 2002 10:29 AM > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) > Conversation: the IBM Shark > Subject: OT: the IBM Shark > > > Is anyone here happen to be running a IBM shark or possibly a > Hitachi 9900 > series SAN? We are looking at both of these and I have heard > rumors that > the shark has a performance boundary of 3.36 TB. Just curious. > > e- _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
