On 28 Apr 2006 09:19:38 -0700, wrote:

Thats Correct Faeandar... it can compress existing data as well...

I agree that its implementation doesent fully match marketing yet...
but I guess my question is... *if* the product were to match marketing
and be able to introduce minimal latency and at the same time compress
atleast about 60%, would this be a type of technology to invest in?

I see all the arguments that I need to cut down on the cost of
management of the data... and beleive me, we are doing everything we
can to do that using products from Archivus etc... But in addition, we
do spend a lot of money on NetApp filers that these kind of products
seem to be able to help with... Not to mention, since I started this
thread, in doing more research into our environment, I am amazed to see
how much money we are paying on energy bills alone with all the storage
equipment we have...

/l

There is no one on this board that can tell you if it's worth it or
not. That's an individual requirements issue.

If all the things you mentioned are benefits to your company, why
would you not? That was not rhetorical, look to the reasons this is
not a good idea even though it meets all your obvious requirements.
ie.
do you need failover?
is it worth it to buy a storewiz per filer (since they only supported
one each when I looked)?
is that worth the management and potential issues that go along with
it?
Whatever other issues there may be...

It's something only you can decide, I think alot of pro's and con's
have been covered. You can always eval it too.

~F