Be wary of the upfront pricing. Currently IBM is offering the kit at very low prices to win back market share from the likes of EMC, HDS and Compaq. You must nail them down to the costs of adding new storage arrays, the cost of additional drives and any tiering of licence prices as your storage grows, also any services you will require afterwards.
Again, if you haven't already done so, I would advise to have a look the HDS 9570V or even the EMC CX600. If you are currently looking at the 9900V these units will give them a run for their money and be cheaper. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 14 December 2002 1:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the IBM Shark "Other technologies" being what?, cause the only other one I have seen in the backstore of a SAN is Fiber Channel Arbitrated Loop, SSA is not arbitrated. TO me this is a pro for multipathing across single ports. Although I have heard that IBM plans to go to FCAL when its throughput gets high enough that the arbitration no longer is a issue. So far it looks like it may be IBM cause of price, they are really coming in strong. And all our figures indicate that the performance between IBM and HDS is a wash. -----Original Message----- From: Exchange (Swynk) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the IBM Shark But token ring does blow chunks. :) I'm glad to hear you've had a successful implementation; ours was far from successful and has left a bad taste in our collective mouth about this product. I think the problem, more than anything, was that a number of different IBM people from different teams and areas of expertise came out here, and no one was able to provide a solution to our problems. The mantra of "it should work, I don't know why it doesn't" lost its humor after about the 27th time. Perhaps we just got a bad batch of guys, who knows. Cost aside, the maximum potential throughput of SSA does not come close to that of some other technologies ... And while "blow chunks" may not have been the best choice of words, I will stand by my lowly opinion of the technology. (Take that with a grain of salt of course, for my opinions rarely hold any value! :) Jon > -----Original Message----- > From: Thompson, Elizabeth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:02 PM > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) > Conversation: the IBM Shark > Subject: RE: the IBM Shark > > > Hi this is Ben Thompson. I am the Sr. Network Engineer at > the college that > Liz is the Exchange Administrator. (I just also happen to dual as her > husband.) We have had a Shark for several years now. The > performance is > great. You may want to look at NT related buffering issues > when dealing > with its performance, we did not have to modify anything to > get it working > though. We are a Compaq shop and the Compaq SANS just was > not up to spec > for Novell, NT/2000, and AIX/Linux. (Novell is not even > supported with NT > on the same unit at the same time.) Exchange has been > working wonderfully, > as well as Novell, Linux, DOS and 2000. (We are Exchange 5.5) > We have been > booting from the SANS since day one, something IBM does not > like but will > support. We also run our production Oracle database on the > Shark. If that > performance lagged for any reason I would have 3 major sites > and 11 remote > sites down my throat in a heartbeat. If anyone would care to > look at our > installation, feel free to e-mail me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > and I can set > it up. > > As to SSA blowing chunks, most people thought the same of > Token-Ring. Just > because something is more complicated to understand and > expensive does not > make the architecture "blow chunks", just cost prohibitive. > > Benjamin N. Thompson > Senior Network Engineer/Manager > CCBC - Catonsville Campus > > -----Original Message----- > From: Exchange (Swynk) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:58 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: the IBM Shark > > > It's definitely related to the architecture -- SSA blows > chunks. We've > had several IBM guys out here to apply their "expertise" > (read: blindly > poke around) ..... plus, paying $30k x 2 for just a couple > hundred gb is > highway robbery! > > Can you tell I hate IBM? :) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Posted At: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:58 AM > > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) > > Conversation: the IBM Shark > > Subject: RE: the IBM Shark > > > > > > While I know the Compaq stuff is some of the best out there, > > I'd be very > > interested to see if the performance issues you're seeing > aren't more > > directly related to poor drive/array/LUN partitioning rather > > than issues > > with specific architecture - after all, once it leaves the > > HBA, FC is FC. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Exchange (Swynk) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:11 PM > > > 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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
