Is EMC Celera really that bad ?

Hi all,

Not looking to provoke a row here, just looking for objective answers.

NetApp has a lengthy and mostly positive track record when it comes to NAS -
no real debate there ( or is there ? )

Just because EMC are associated traditionally with high-end SAN, does that
mean that, almost by definition, their offerings in other segments are bound
to be some way off the pace of the "market leaders" - whoever they may be ?

We're a large-ish DMX / Clariion estate (SAN) and are looking to evolve our
file/print from a server-based to a NAS-based architecture.

If you were me, given that we're an EMC shop, wouldn't you be minded to look
first at Celera and ( if pushed ) then look to see what the other major
players offered as opposed to merely going with the "received wisdom".

The can of worms is hereby opened.

Best wishes to everyone,

Nick,
Cardiff,
UK

On Jan 29, 1:42 pm, "Nicholas Buckley"
wrote:
Hi all,

Not looking to provoke a row here, just looking for objective answers.

A really simple way of answering that is to ask for a quote and for
the vendor to include professional services on getting it set up.
When we were quoted the Celera a few years ago, we were quoted for
over 70 hours of professional services to configure it and pass on
some basic operational expertise. That's TWO weeks of PS consulting
to teach you how to configure the darn thing. My answer was short and
blunt: if it's that complex to operate, then I don't want it.

Unless you're a moron, you can figure out how to run a NetApp without
too much digging into manuals or asking a vendor for help and it won't
take you 2 weeks either.

There are darn good reasons that NetApp is the clear market leader and
it's not because their stuff is crap or hard to manage. It's also not
because they're the cheapest player out there, because they're not.

If I were in your shoes, I'd consider NetApp first and then if you
really, really couldn't couldn't purchase it for political reasons,
settle for less (Celera) and pay more.

.../Ed

Nicholas Buckley wrote:
Hi all,

Not looking to provoke a row here, just looking for objective answers.

NetApp has a lengthy and mostly positive track record when it comes to NAS -
no real debate there ( or is there ? )

Just because EMC are associated traditionally with high-end SAN, does that
mean that, almost by definition, their offerings in other segments are bound
to be some way off the pace of the "market leaders" - whoever they may be ?

We're a large-ish DMX / Clariion estate (SAN) and are looking to evolve our
file/print from a server-based to a NAS-based architecture.

If you were me, given that we're an EMC shop, wouldn't you be minded to look
first at Celera and ( if pushed ) then look to see what the other major
players offered as opposed to merely going with the "received wisdom".

The netapp stuff is easy to setup and run. You don't need large stupid
"enterprise" management suites to run the thing- just a serial console for
the initial setup, although there's probably some webgui in the heads now.

You can get the same level of service as well, where some tech shows
up with spare disks at 3am, all at probably 1/5000th of the EMC price.

My two cents worth...

NetApp clearly has a better NAS box than EMC. I don't think that anyone will
really disagree with that. I usually recommend EMC for SMB SANs, NetApp for
NAS needs and HP XP or EMC DMX for Enterprise customers that need absolute
uptime.


"Nicholas Buckley" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

Not looking to provoke a row here, just looking for objective answers.

NetApp has a lengthy and mostly positive track record when it comes to
NAS - no real debate there ( or is there ? )

Just because EMC are associated traditionally with high-end SAN, does that
mean that, almost by definition, their offerings in other segments are
bound to be some way off the pace of the "market leaders" - whoever they
may be ?

We're a large-ish DMX / Clariion estate (SAN) and are looking to evolve
our file/print from a server-based to a NAS-based architecture.

If you were me, given that we're an EMC shop, wouldn't you be minded to
look first at Celera and ( if pushed ) then look to see what the other
major players offered as opposed to merely going with the "received
wisdom".

The can of worms is hereby opened.

Best wishes to everyone,

Nick,
Cardiff,
UK

We use Celerra NS502 gateways on a CLARiiON backend and to be honest I
wouldn't do it again. The Celerra is a complicated and completely
different beast to manage compared to, say, NetApp, CLARiiON, HP EVA
etc. Where I find CLARiiON management to be quite inuitive, Celerra
is not, an understanding of how it works is essential to successful
ongoing management and the GUI is awful, some tasks can be completed
via GUI, while many are command line driven through one of the several
command line optoins. Clunky and unintuitive would sum it up.

I think NetApps often get used inappropriately but as a NAS platform
they're a good choice however in my experience they're consistently
more expensive than EMC. Perhaps the higher price is offset by
reduced admin costs?

I'd also question why you want a NAS, if you're looking for a
resilient file server platform - great - otherwise stick to block
level SAN storage. I've often seen NAS pitched as a low-cost storage
platform, e.g. archiving, but have rarely seen cost benefits of SAN vs
NAS,

My 2c.

In article ,
Jono968 wrote:
We use Celerra NS502 gateways on a CLARiiON backend and to be honest I
wouldn't do it again. The Celerra is a complicated and completely
different beast to manage compared to, say, NetApp, CLARiiON, HP EVA
etc. Where I find CLARiiON management to be quite inuitive, Celerra
is not, an understanding of how it works is essential to successful
ongoing management and the GUI is awful, some tasks can be completed
via GUI, while many are command line driven through one of the several
command line optoins. Clunky and unintuitive would sum it up.

CLARiiON was Data General; Celerra has always been EMC. It shows...

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky