HP EVA3000 and EMC CX300

Hi!

We're looking at a SAN solution for hosting about 8 servers for now
and possibly adding a few more next year. The server are fileservers
and a MS Exchange server with ~ 2000 users. The fileservers will be
for about 3500+ concurrent clients.

We're looking at a HP EVA3000 or an EMC CX300, both equipped from
start with ~14 drives, 146GB 10K and we'll be adding 10+ more next
year.

Now there is a rather big price difference between the EMC CX300 vs HP
EVA3000, anyone care to enlighten me why the EVA3000 would be much
more expensive?

Have anyone compared or used equipment from both suppliers?

================================================== ===
Janåke Rönnblom
SKERIA Utveckling AB (Teknous)
Assistentgatan 23
931 77 Skelleftea (Sweden)
-----------------------------------------------------
Phone : +46-910-58 54 24
Mobile : 070-397 07 43
Fax : +46-910-58 54 99
URL : http://skeria.skelleftea.se
-----------------------------------------------------

Check http://www.storageperformance.org/ it's free and
independant - unfortunately there are no EMC products
there, don't know why.

Rene

Jan?ke R?nnblom wrote:

Hi!

We're looking at a SAN solution for hosting about 8 servers for now
and possibly adding a few more next year. The server are fileservers
and a MS Exchange server with ~ 2000 users. The fileservers will be
for about 3500+ concurrent clients.

We're looking at a HP EVA3000 or an EMC CX300, both equipped from
start with ~14 drives, 146GB 10K and we'll be adding 10+ more next
year.

Now there is a rather big price difference between the EMC CX300 vs HP
EVA3000, anyone care to enlighten me why the EVA3000 would be much
more expensive?

Have anyone compared or used equipment from both suppliers?

================================================== ===
Janåke Rönnblom
SKERIA Utveckling AB (Teknous)
Assistentgatan 23
931 77 Skelleftea (Sweden)
-----------------------------------------------------
Phone : +46-910-58 54 24
Mobile : 070-397 07 43
Fax : +46-910-58 54 99
URL : http://skeria.skelleftea.se
-----------------------------------------------------

--
------------------------------------------------------
**** Complex Systems tend to fail in complex ways ****
------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 06 May 2004 11:42:14 -0700, Jan?ke R?nnblom wrote:

Hi!

We're looking at a SAN solution for hosting about 8 servers for now
and possibly adding a few more next year. The server are fileservers
and a MS Exchange server with ~ 2000 users. The fileservers will be
for about 3500+ concurrent clients.

We're looking at a HP EVA3000 or an EMC CX300, both equipped from
start with ~14 drives, 146GB 10K and we'll be adding 10+ more next
year.

Now there is a rather big price difference between the EMC CX300 vs HP
EVA3000, anyone care to enlighten me why the EVA3000 would be much
more expensive?

Have you actually been quoted by a reseller or HP? Retail prices are
generally higher than what they actually go for on the market. However,
the EVA3000 is considered a mid-range storage product and the EMC CX300 is
entry-level. I'm not familar with the features of the EMC CX300 but I'm
assuming that the major differences in price are because the array's are
targeted for two different markets, thus the specs and features of the
EVA3000 are geared for a high level of use.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...555&l=en&s=biz

http://h18006.www1.hp.com/storage/midrangestorage.html

--
Jake Roersma

On 6 May 2004 11:42:14 -0700, (Jan?ke R?nnblom)
wrote:

Now there is a rather big price difference between the EMC CX300 vs HP
EVA3000, anyone care to enlighten me why the EVA3000 would be much
more expensive?

The CX300 doesn't support EMC's MirrorView application - which is used
to replicate data from one Clariion to another.

HP's equivalent, BusinessCopy, will run quite happily on the EVA3000.

In your situation, you may never want to remotely replicate your data
- and if you did, there are software tools to do it independently of
the disk array.

Another poster suggested that the CX300 was entry level, which it is,
but only in terms of EMC's product range. It's not low-end storage by
any means.

HVB

On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:52:07 +0100, HV Biker wrote:

On 6 May 2004 11:42:14 -0700, (Jan?ke R?nnblom)
wrote:

Now there is a rather big price difference between the EMC CX300 vs HP
EVA3000, anyone care to enlighten me why the EVA3000 would be much
more expensive?

The CX300 doesn't support EMC's MirrorView application - which is used
to replicate data from one Clariion to another.

HP's equivalent, BusinessCopy, will run quite happily on the EVA3000.

In your situation, you may never want to remotely replicate your data
- and if you did, there are software tools to do it independently of
the disk array.


EVA's BusinessCopy will only replicate on a single frame. For replication
between EVA's you need to use Continous Access.

--
Jake Roersma

Jake Roersma wrote in message ws.com...

Have you actually been quoted by a reseller or HP? Retail prices are
generally higher than what they actually go for on the market. However,
the EVA3000 is considered a mid-range storage product and the EMC CX300 is
entry-level. I'm not familar with the features of the EMC CX300 but I'm
assuming that the major differences in price are because the array's are
targeted for two different markets, thus the specs and features of the
EVA3000 are geared for a high level of use.

Yes, our prices has come from a reseller which did a "bid" for this
equipment against HP. They are also aware that they are competing
against DELL.