If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:06:42 -0500, Nik Simpson
wrote: Faeandar wrote: Yes, they could do that, but then so could every other competitor, NDMP is available to anybody, not just Index Engines. EMC does something similar, though probably proprietary with it's classification product which gets a "dump" of metadata from Celerra file servers rather walking the file system over the network. Any/every other product could but, so far as I've seen, do not. That one bit is intriguing enough to me to look at them. I may have been asking far too open ended a question. My needs are fairly simple; tell me what, where, how big, how frequently accessed, what type of file, etc. I've no need for a deep dive of content. Index Engines wouldn't be a solution then, since to the best of my knowledge it's all about content indexing & search. However, both Scentric and Kazeon can do what you want without having to generate a content index. We have Kazeon on eval and so far I can't say I'm impressed. It's quite slow. Getting data on an entire filer would take many weeks based on performance tests. It took 4 days to run a single qtree on a filer. I'm looking for typical SRM stats, but on a fair scale. So you don't actually want to take any actions like migrating little used stuff to tier2? That is correct. No automated migrations or anything. I want information that me and my staff can make decisions based on, but our needs are not simple enough for policy based file migration. Anyway, both Scentric and Kazeon offer extensive SRM reporting, though if reporting is all you want, you might want to take a look at Monosphere which has a pure file SRM solution. How big is a "fair scale" to you, 10s, 100s, 1000s of TB? I thought Monosphere was more of a trending and analysis tool? Not file level reporting. We are slated to eval them for a different purpose but I'll keep them in mind for this as well. Fair scale would be 100's of TB. ~F |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
On Feb 3, 7:44 pm, Faeandar wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:06:42 -0500, Nik Simpson wrote: Faeandar wrote: Yes, they could do that, but then so could every other competitor, NDMP is available to anybody, not just Index Engines. EMC does something similar, though probably proprietary with it's classification product which gets a "dump" of metadata from Celerra file servers rather walking the file system over the network. Any/every other product could but, so far as I've seen, do not. That one bit is intriguing enough to me to look at them. I may have been asking far too open ended a question. My needs are fairly simple; tell me what, where, how big, how frequently accessed, what type of file, etc. I've no need for a deep dive of content. Index Engines wouldn't be a solution then, since to the best of my knowledge it's all about content indexing & search. However, both Scentric and Kazeon can do what you want without having to generate a content index. We have Kazeon on eval and so far I can't say I'm impressed. It's quite slow. Getting data on an entire filer would take many weeks based on performance tests. It took 4 days to run a single qtree on a filer. Is this for the kazeon to crawl the filer? How much data is on that filer? And how many files is that data in? Is it crawling the filer via the FPolicy link or via a NFS link? I'm looking for typical SRM stats, but on a fair scale. So you don't actually want to take any actions like migrating little used stuff to tier2? That is correct. No automated migrations or anything. I want information that me and my staff can make decisions based on, but our needs are not simple enough for policy based file migration. Anyway, both Scentric and Kazeon offer extensive SRM reporting, though if reporting is all you want, you might want to take a look at Monosphere which has a pure file SRM solution. How big is a "fair scale" to you, 10s, 100s, 1000s of TB? I thought Monosphere was more of a trending and analysis tool? Not file level reporting. We are slated to eval them for a different purpose but I'll keep them in mind for this as well. Fair scale would be 100's of TB. ~F |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
On Feb 3, 7:44 pm, Faeandar wrote:
... I thought Monosphere was more of a trending and analysis tool? Not file level reporting. We are slated to eval them for a different purpose but I'll keep them in mind for this as well. Fair scale would be 100's of TB. ~F If the number of files is around tens of millions, then this Fileyzer tool seems to do what you mentioned: http://neopathnetworks.com/products/fileyzer.aspx (Trial download) It's purely for analysis; no data placement. It's light and fast. The GUI is neat, too. Cheers, bc |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
On 5 Feb 2007 15:45:22 -0800, "bcwalrus" wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:44 pm, Faeandar wrote: ... I thought Monosphere was more of a trending and analysis tool? Not file level reporting. We are slated to eval them for a different purpose but I'll keep them in mind for this as well. Fair scale would be 100's of TB. ~F If the number of files is around tens of millions, then this Fileyzer tool seems to do what you mentioned: http://neopathnetworks.com/products/fileyzer.aspx (Trial download) It's purely for analysis; no data placement. It's light and fast. The GUI is neat, too. Cheers, bc i will check this out and post back my findings. Thanks. ~F |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
On 5 Feb 2007 15:45:22 -0800, "bcwalrus" wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:44 pm, Faeandar wrote: ... I thought Monosphere was more of a trending and analysis tool? Not file level reporting. We are slated to eval them for a different purpose but I'll keep them in mind for this as well. Fair scale would be 100's of TB. ~F If the number of files is around tens of millions, then this Fileyzer tool seems to do what you mentioned: http://neopathnetworks.com/products/fileyzer.aspx (Trial download) It's purely for analysis; no data placement. It's light and fast. The GUI is neat, too. Cheers, bc I downloaded it and two things I notice make it less than helpful. 1) the trial version won't analyze network drives (That's where the problems are !!!) 2) it seems to only analyze the C drive on my windows box and disregards any selection criteria I give it. It's the same view no matter what my criteria are. I may talk to NeoPath and get a full fledged eval because the concept is interesting. But this download, thoughI appreciate the effort and thought, proved to be useless. ~F |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
On Feb 1, 8:54 pm, Nik Simpson wrote:
Faeandar wrote: So, since we have two people from companies in this space I'd like to pose the competitive question: What are your thoughts onIndex Engines? First, right now I would not seeIndex Enginesas a direct competitor, they are purely a search application and don't offer much in the way of classification or policy-based data management which is needed for ILM. Second for enterprise wide search the problem is that when I'm looking for document X, I'd rather find it on disk than buried on a backup tape. If I can't find it online, then I'd go backup tape. So other than as an application for helping me keep better track of what I've backed up I don't see much of a future for it. Interesting technology that I suspect will get embedded in things like VTLs and D2D disk backup appliances. I don't see it as a standalone technology. Good acquisition candidate for somebody in that space. -- Nik Simpson Nik: I am with Index Engines - and want to update your post above. We initially entered the market with a search capability, however we have since added reporting and classification solutions. We are seeing strong traction in the data classification space as we are the only vendor that can provide full knowledge of data at the scale required for enterprise wide engagements. Many of the ILM/classification vendors have used open source indexing solutions - which do not scale to millions/billions of files and email. We have architected a purpose built indexing solution that provides comprehensive insight into all enterprise data assets. A logical fit for anyone looking into ILM or classification solutions. Additionally, we can ingest data from a SAN, LAN or directly from tape. Our architecture is designed to understand storage protocols - so plugging us into any of these environments will allow us to ingest data. Hope this clarifies how we fit in the market and differentiates us from the others. Jim McGann www.indexengines.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
On Feb 5, 7:00 pm, Faeandar wrote:
On 5 Feb 2007 15:45:22 -0800, "bcwalrus" wrote: On Feb 3, 7:44 pm, Faeandar wrote: ... I thought Monosphere was more of a trending and analysis tool? Not file level reporting. We are slated to eval them for a different purpose but I'll keep them in mind for this as well. Fair scale would be 100's of TB. ~F If the number of files is around tens of millions, then this Fileyzer tool seems to do what you mentioned: http://neopathnetworks.com/products/fileyzer.aspx (Trial download) It's purely for analysis; no data placement. It's light and fast. The GUI is neat, too. Cheers, bc I downloaded it and two things I notice make it less than helpful. 1) the trial version won't analyze network drives (That's where the problems are !!!) 2) it seems to only analyze the C drive on my windows box and disregards any selection criteria I give it. It's the same view no matter what my criteria are. I may talk to NeoPath and get a full fledged eval because the concept is interesting. But this download, thoughI appreciate the effort and thought, proved to be useless. ~F Faeandar, just out of curiosity, how does the kazeon to crawl the filer... does it do it via NFS or via NetApp's FPolicy API? And how much data is on your filer that it took so many days to analyze (how many TB and how many files?) Dvy |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
On Feb 6, 11:11 am, Faeandar wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 09:58:53 -0800, wrote: Faeandar, just out of curiosity, how does the kazeon to crawl the filer... does it do it via NFS or via NetApp's FPolicy API? And how much data is on your filer that it took so many days to analyze (how many TB and how many files?) Dvy It does not use FPolicy for crawls, though I hear it does do migrations now so I assume it talke to Fpolicy in some fashion? The amount of data on the filer does not seem to make a difference. Some qtrees have 10's of millions, others have millions, even others had 100's of thousands. In all cases it traversed at about 16 objects per sec. Not good. ~F 16 files per second via NFS seems very bad... One should easily be able to findfirst/findnext via NFS to get meta data much faster than 16 files per sec... I wonder what is holding them up... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
ILM and Full Text Search
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|