<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Barry Whyte</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/80ff2ac7915c3133075de277b5a4ca4a/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:12:20 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: ewan.to - Benchmarking storage</title><link>http://ewanto.disqus.com/ewanto_benchmarking_storage/#comment-12258</link><description>Ewan, I sympathise wtith your situation. SPC is aimed more at whats the maximum bandwidth while keeping within certain response times.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you find the ESS still acceptable in performance, you could always front it with an SVC and investigate some mid-range products - the extra cache boost from SVC will esentially boost the performance of modern mid-range controllers - things have moved on a lot since ESS, and the mid-range DS4800 range maybe enough for your needs. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;With SVC you get the FlashCopy as required, and a platform for future SVC code enhancements (lot of good and interesting things planned for next year) &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The biggest benefit right now would be the online migration path off of the ESS at a time that suits you (after a small bit of downtime to remap the ESS luns through SVC.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I'm sure your IBM sales rep / business partner can provide plenty of help  as required.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Barry Whyte</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:24:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Register Gulps Down Blocks and Files</title><link>http://fosketts.disqus.com/the_register_gulps_down_blocks_and_files/#comment-3765324</link><description>LOL, I was going to 'congratulate' him last week, but instead ... posted that "some people are hard to please"&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/storagevirtualization?entry=some_people_are_hard_to" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/st...&lt;/a&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Barry Whyte</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:01:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Difference Between &amp;#8220;Integration&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;Frankenstein&amp;#8221;</title><link>http://fosketts.disqus.com/the_difference_between_8220integration8221_and_8220frankenstein8221/#comment-6055432</link><description>When SVC is in the mix, we are quite happy to help diagnose from the host to the SAN through SVC and to the storage. The major players in the industry have signed up to a common support agreement when it comes to SANs, not only will we (IBM) help diagnose, but drive through to any vendor that is claiming it aint their problem. I think you might find another TLA corporation does the most finger pointing, and doesn't play ball when things haven't gone their way. Each can read their own into this...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Barry Whyte</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:11:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Storage Automation</title><link>http://fosketts.disqus.com/how_i_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_storage_automation/#comment-6137467</link><description>Well given that the DMX is slower than DS8000 then what does that say? (unless you have some independent benchmark that shows otherwise you'd like to share?)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You could put SVC nodes infront of anything in the open systems world, and get thin provisioning for no extra charge - still be cheaper than paying for it on DMX or USP.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Barry Whyte</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:12:20 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>