I would also like a copy of that template. Has anyone used the perfmon kits supplied by the storage vendors? EMC has one that I'm going to run starting Monday for 24 hours to measure the activity and storage requirements on the servers. I also have Dells iokit to run for their equalogic storage.
Ed Anderson edw...@gmail.com On Thursday, February 9, 2012, Rene de Haas <rene.deh...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > And maybe not just Kurt. > > René > > Op 8 feb. 2012 12:09 schreef "Bob Hartung" <bhart...@wiscoind.com> het volgende: >> >> So EMC creates an artificial limitation in order to expand/enhance their revenue stream by seeming to seem more cost competitive with other vendors. Then they are vague about the limitation. That's a great approach for an entry level product. I can see their slogan "EMC...be sure to check the fine print!." >> >> I'm sure Kurt will be thinking all kinds of good thoughts about EMC on the next SAN project. >> >> ---------------------- >> >> Bob Hartung >> Dir of I.T. >> Wisco Industries, Inc. >> 736 Janesville St. >> Oregon, WI 53575 >> Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215 >> Fax: (608) 835-7399 >> e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] >> To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] >> Sent: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:36:14 -0600 >> Subject: Re: EMC limitations? >> >> No offense taken, and none meant on my part either - just some >> disagreement spiced a bit too heavily with the frustration. I do >> understand that caveat emptor applies, and that it would have been >> better if we'd done more research, but that bit of misdirection on >> their part was just a bit rich... >> >> Kurt >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 22:30, Sean Martin <seanmarti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I certainly didn't mean to offend you nor do I blame you for being >> > frustrated. It's just that companies aren't going to list their lack of >> > functionality for all to see. What you're running into is not necessarily an >> > issue, but rather a limitation. Now a good reseller would have done a better >> > job of trying to identify your requirements and then used those to pitch a >> > higher-end solution (if justified). >> > >> > I'm assuming Lyris won't allow attachments so I'm forwarding the template to >> > those that expressed interest individually. >> > >> > - Sean >> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 18:10, Sean Martin <seanmarti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Well this is one of those scenarios where I think the customer needs >> >> > to take responsibility. A good practice to get into is the creation of >> >> > technical >> >> > requirement matrices and business requirement matrices. It helps you put >> >> > on paper what capabilities you need in a solution and gives the vendor a >> >> > uniform method of informing you of the strengths and weaknesses of their >> >> > platform. We typically tier our requirements into 3 categories that >> >> > allows us to >> >> > weigh the importance of features. For example, a tier 1 requirement >> >> > might be >> >> > that the solution support fiber channel or iscsi where a tier 2 or 3 >> >> > requirement >> >> > might be support for sub-lun tiering or a 64bit OS to leverage larger >> >> > cache. >> >> >> >> This is EMC for crying out loud - arguably the leader in the field, >> >> and it's a software issue. We're not talking about going with lesser >> >> hardware, which can steeply influence the costs. As well, I was given >> >> to understand that this is a relatively new line for them. They have >> >> the software in hand, and my 4 year old Lefthands don't have this >> >> limitation. I do place this 99% on them (split in some fashion between >> >> EMC and the reseller). I'll hand the 1% to my manager, who had used >> >> them before, doesn't like the Lefthands, and trusted the reseller rep >> >> he's worked with at his prior company. I was given no say in the >> >> matter - I suggested another LH unit. >> >> >> >> > It may be too little too late but I'd be happy to share the template we >> >> > used for our last storage purchase. >> >> >> >> That might actually be a nice thing - we might not technically outgrow >> >> the unit, as it can stack a huge number of disks, but I don't see us >> >> doing a whole lot more with it, given that limitation, and the other >> >> that raised my dander. >> >> >> >> > - Sean >> >> > >> >> > On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> If true, it would have been nice of them to disclose that before >> >> >> purchase, methinks... >> >> >> >> >> >> Kurt >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 17:04, Sean Martin <seanmarti...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> I believe the next versions of VNX (5700, 7500, etc) support SCSI 3 >> >> >>> protocol which would not have that limitation. I believe this was a >> >> >>> limitation that was purposely introduced into the VNXe because EMC is >> >> >>> marketing it as an entry level "all-in-one" storage solution. They >> >> >>> need reasons for customers to scale up to the more expensive >> >> >>> platforms. I believe even the older CX, CX3 and CX4 models supported >> >> >>> SCSI 3. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> - Sean >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 2/7/12, Mathew Shember <mathew.shem...@synopsys.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> I have not used an EMC in a while but that does sound familia >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >>>> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] >> >> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:22 PM >> >> >>>> To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> >>>> Subject: EMC limitations? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I've got a new-ish (January) EMC VNXe 3100, and have run into a >> >> >>>> troubling >> >> >>>> limitation - in use as an iSCSI device, it doesn't support LUNs >> >> >>>> larger than >> >> >>>> 1.99tb. According to a post by EMC staff on their community forum, >> >> >>>> it's doe >> >> >> >> >>>> to the implementation of the SCSI II protocol. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I don't know if this limitations affects its use as a NAS, but that's >> >> >>>> disturbing. My Lefthand units support larger LUNs with no problem. >> >> >>>> And, otherwise, it's performed just fine - no problems at all. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Does anyone out there now if other EMC products have this limitation? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Kurt >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ >> >> >>>> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> --- >> >> >>>> To manage subscriptions click here: >> >> >>>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ >> >> >>>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com >> >> >>>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> >> >>>> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> --- >> >> >>>> To manage subscriptions click here: >> >> >>>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ >> >> >>>> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com >> >> >>>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin >> >> >>> >> >> >>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> >> >>> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> >>> >> >> >>> --- >> >> >>> To manage subscriptions click here: >> >> >>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ >> >> >>> or send an em >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> --- > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
