Re: MetaStor Network Attached opinions?

[paul.joslin@weirdness.com (Paul R. Joslin)]

On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:04:30 -0800 (PST), "Shane B. Milburn"
<milburn@netcom.com> said:

Shane> I'm getting ready to buy a 500GB network attached disk
Shane> array. I was leaning toward the MetaStor box because I have
Shane> 3 locally attached Symbios logic arrays and I really like
Shane> them a lot. But after checking out the products from
Shane> MetaStor and NetApps during LISA I'm not sure if the
Shane> MetaStor machine will give me the performance/reliability
Shane> I'm looking for.

Shane> Anyone got any opinions (good/bad) about the MetaStor box?

Shane> How about the NetApp box?

I'd advise you to look at the size of your working set, especially
with an "enterprise" class box.  My concern with these boxes is
the amount of cache they support.  You hear claims of 1 TB or 500
GB, then look at the fine print and see that the box maxes out at
256 MB of cache.  If cache is tight, you have to look at spindles
& disk speed.  Also, you need to determine how you're going to
back up a 500 GB lump of data.  NetApp recommends NFS mounting it
and doing it over the net.  That works, if you have a backup
window and sufficient {net, server, tape} capacity.

As far as reliability goes, in my experience NetApp > Auspex >
{New HP, New Sun} >> old Sun (1000's).  That said, most of our
problems with Auspex and the newer HP & Sun have been
self-inflicted (misconfiguration or operator error).  You can buy
high RAS from mirroring systems down to hot swap drives for Sun & HP.
I have no experience with the MetaStor.

-- 
Paul R. Joslin                       Nine-tenths of wisdom is being wise in
paul.joslin@weirdness.com            time.
+1 513 576 2012                          -- Theodore Roosevelt