DISQUS

Would you mind NOT hiding the target URL in your blog posts? While useful (necessary, even) on Twitter, there's no need for tinyurls in a blog post. Your readers should be able to know where your link is taking them BEFORE they click in. Some corporate firewalls even BLOCK tinyurl.com (et al), so you're limiting your reach by using them

Sorry, it wasn't meant to marginalize weither HDS nor HP, but I'm not aware of any significant amount of storage development being done by HDS outside of some external management tools. And HP has admitted that their development for the XP24000 is limited to documentation and storage management-related integration with the rest of their product line - my understanding is that the USP-V and its microcode is virtually untouched by HP hands.

And I may be wrong here too, but my understanding is that neither the USP-V nor the AMS are built by HDS either.

Hnmmm...I failed to see that requirement in the definitions of RAID. But no matter, the fact is that for any given drive in a 7+1 set, ALL of the hypers on that drive must in fact be ONLY on one of the other 7 drives. Sure, you can also have 3+1, 1+1 and 6+2 hypers on that given drive, but all of their members must also be only on the same 8 drives.

So, if you create ONLY 7+1 RAID sets on a group of 8 drives, all the hypers will only be on those 8 drives, thereby matching the requirement that you defined for "TRUE" RAID 5.

No?.

Nice job - a great lineup of products., truly representative of the evolution of the industry.

One small point of clarification - today Symmetrix DMX's do indeed support RAID 5 (and RAID 6).

And I totally agree with your decision to ignore <company's> <product model> <version number> in <year>!

The API is in active negotiation in T10, and I'm sure that Symantec is aware of it.


The approach Symantec took is actually rather disruptive and a blatant mis-use of an existing SCSI command - used against a non-aware thin provisioning implementation, it could actually cause needless allocation of storage...having the direct opposite effect as is being marketed.

I think I heard that T10 actually rejected the very approach Symantec is using.

In the rush to be first, corners are being cut and this is never good for the industry.

I'd say more, but I don't think I'm supposed to know what they did...but you might want to do some digging on your own.

Hear! Hear!!!

(Thanks for the support)

Actually, it is disheartening that Symantec chose to define their own API, rather than to collaborate with the industry and the T10 standards body in defining a standard interface.

And I'm happy that you're happy, Dave. But you really should get some rest, take more time to enjoy your family, and don't sweat the little things so much.

Perhaps we can swap perspectives over a beer some time...

And I'm happy that you're happy, Dave. But you really should get some rest, take more time to enjoy your family, and don't sweat the little things so much.

Perhaps we can swap perspectives over a beer some time...

A dolmen, huh? I think it looks more like a Big Blue Finger!

Welcome to the Blog-o-Sphere, Dave!

It's great to have you aboard, and I wish all the luck in the world actually keeping up with your weekly list. Even if you don't get to them all in a given week, it's a great idea to keep a running list of topics you'd like to cover.

Just be ready for the inevitable diversions!

Welcome to the Blog-o-Sphere, Dave!

It's great to have you aboard, and I wish all the luck in the world actually keeping up with your weekly list. Even if you don't get to them all in a given week, it's a great idea to keep a running list of topics you'd like to cover.

Just be ready for the inevitable diversions!

You claim that "SATA in the enterprise has been controversial", but in reality, SATA drives have been being used in many enterprises for more than 2 years. They've just been used in "mid-tier" storage arrays like CLARiiON (the first to support SATA drives, I beleive).

And while SATA isn't necessarily displacing faster enterprise-class disk drives, the slow/fat/cheap drives do allow customers to more cost-effectively store certain classes of data - like the 7 years of emails and IM messages that many are required to maintain for compliance, or nearline backups (for fast recovery).

Any controversy over SATA drives in Enterprise Arrays appears to be fueled by the vendors who don't offer native support for SATA in their enterprise storage products. But the fact is that customers are already adopting and using SATA storage within their enterprise data centers.

I think you may have missed my point. I'm not really talking about censoring bloggers opinions and biases...

If you track back to my previous discussions on blogketing (entries 14, 15 & 17 on my blog at http://thestorageanarchist.com), you'll see I'm really asking whether Corporate bloggers have the same truth-in-advertising responsibilities as the other more formal marketing communications vehicles, or can they get away with making misrepresentions and unverifiable assertions simply because they're "blogging" and not "copy writing?"


Every Corporate Blog I've seen is governed by a Code of Conduct and/or a Business Conduct Guide, and in most cases, the CoC/BCG also applies to employees who blog outside the shadow of the corporate logo (EMC's blogging policy indeed covers my blog).

It's one thing for industry analysts to make outrageous assertions about a vendors' products - it's how they make a living. And if the vendor doesn't like it, they have every right to persue correction or retraction (although this works better with some analysts than others).

But I think it is very different when a Corporate Blogger crosses over the line into the land of fiction or omission. In my book, if you couldn't print the assertion in the front page of your company's web site, it probably doesn't belong in your blog.

Despite all the CoC/BCG's, I've seen many misrepresentations posted as fact on corporate blogs. Some of these wouldn't have been appropraite for even internal "Company Confidential" communications back in the pre-blog days. And I for one don't think it's right - I'm not sure what's to be done about it, though...