well, for serving up windows CIFS file shares, the windows storage
server platform is pretty strong.
when combined with hp's polyserve-based cluster services, it has client
transparent failover, access to the same shares from multiple
nodes at the same time, and snapshot integration with the eva8000.
now if the workload is NFS, that's another matter.
since an hp windows storage server cluster scales linearly as you add
nodes, the performance can be tremendous with an eva8000 on the backend.
we have test results on CIFS showing linear scaling up to 1,600
Megabytes per second (not Megabits) on an 8 node Windows cluster, with
all nodes
mounting, reading, writing, and exporting the same file systems from all
nodes concurrently, with automatic load balancing of client CIFS
connections across the nodes.
carter
________________________________
From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of Langborg Tom
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:36 PM
To: toasters@mathworks.com
Subject: Netapp vs eva800 with Microsoft Windows Storage Server 2003
Hi
I need some arguments for netapp vs Microsoft Windows Storage Server
2003 with eva8000.
I now that the doesn't have snappvault, opensnapvault.
But how is uptime with Microsoft Windows Storage Server 2003 and max
volumes performens and so on?
The arguments that we have is the cost otherwise, we are complete happy
with our fas940 and r200.
We use 90% nas and 10% san.
Regards
tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 16 2006 - 23:05:48 EST