A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Storage & Hardrives
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 4th 08, 11:06 AM posted to comp.arch.storage
Ray Breen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20

Hi Guys,

I am going through the process of business continuity and am looking
at using one of our remote sites as a hot site from a data and
services point of view. This is going to be using vmware / vmotion to
take care of the servers, and some site to site replication for the
data,

The I.T department for the company consists of 3 guys, who have to do
everything from 1st line support to 3rd/4th so simplicity and
reliability of the equipment is a given.

Having narrowed down to two suppliers, namely netapp and Emc.Netapp
have recommended the Fas2050 and EMC the ns20. Both are nas products
with the capability of having fibre channel connectivity.

I am going to virtualise around 14 servers in total, with there being
2 exchange, 2 sql and various other supporting servers. The file is
going to be handled by the nas boxes.

My thoughts on the two nas systems based upon various demonstrations,
online research is based below.
Emc Vs Net App Comparison


------Inteface / Ease of Use

Aim : Ease of management for the I.T Team.

Emc requires two completely separate interfaces to the san and iscsi/
nas storage. This complicates the management and ongoing support. Net
only has one unified interface.

Netapp interface is easier to use.

NetApp is the clear winner

------General Nas features

Aim: Most productive features

Netapp have been in the nas industry for many years, compared to EMC
who have only recently moved into this segment.
All Netapp features propagate down from the highest level to the
lowest. EMC have several differentiating tiers in their product line,
so so some features are not available on the lower equipment, that is
on the higher.

Netapp is the winner

------SnapShot Technology

Aim : Ability to take snapshots on a regular basis with no/small
performance hit.

Netapp caters for upto 255 snapshots. EMC only 96 which for my needs
is fine.

With Netapp can do something like the following :

D.R Snapshot - runs every 5 minutes, and keeps a maximum of 12 (an
hours worth of copies).

File recovery Snapshot - Another schedule which backs up the same
data, but does it every 4 hours and keeps a maximum of 15 copies (3
taken every 4 days, every working day, so will have 5 working days)

Daily/Weekend backup Snapshot - Which backs up the same data but runs
only once a night with a maximum of 30 copies (will simulate our
nightly/weekly/monthly data).

This will greatly reduce our tape storage/transportation costs, saving
1000's a year.

Netapp is the clear winner

------Cost / Performance

Aim : Keep costs low while satisfying the criteria for Business
Continuity

No definitive costs as of yet, but it is looking likely that netapp
are going to undercut emc.

Raid-DP, Thin provisioning, De-Duplication, potentially far less disk
wastage/segregration compared to emc's traditional lun approach

------Pedigree / reliability in the industry

Emc are second to none in their quality control and support. Very
little hardware failures ever leave their factory.

------Fragmentation Concerns

Netapp's file system has benefits but also potential downsides with
the way that it writes data. General recommendations are that over
time, and especially if the aggregate is near capacity, performance
can be noticeably affected.

Does anyone have anything to add to this?

Thanks in advance

Ray
  #2  
Old January 4th 08, 03:03 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
Cydrome Leader
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20

Ray Breen wrote:
Hi Guys,

I am going through the process of business continuity and am looking
at using one of our remote sites as a hot site from a data and
services point of view. This is going to be using vmware / vmotion to
take care of the servers, and some site to site replication for the
data,

The I.T department for the company consists of 3 guys, who have to do
everything from 1st line support to 3rd/4th so simplicity and
reliability of the equipment is a given.

Having narrowed down to two suppliers, namely netapp and Emc.Netapp
have recommended the Fas2050 and EMC the ns20. Both are nas products
with the capability of having fibre channel connectivity.

I am going to virtualise around 14 servers in total, with there being
2 exchange, 2 sql and various other supporting servers. The file is
going to be handled by the nas boxes.

My thoughts on the two nas systems based upon various demonstrations,
online research is based below.
Emc Vs Net App Comparison


------Inteface / Ease of Use

Aim : Ease of management for the I.T Team.

Emc requires two completely separate interfaces to the san and iscsi/
nas storage. This complicates the management and ongoing support. Net
only has one unified interface.

Netapp interface is easier to use.

NetApp is the clear winner

------General Nas features

Aim: Most productive features

Netapp have been in the nas industry for many years, compared to EMC
who have only recently moved into this segment.
All Netapp features propagate down from the highest level to the
lowest. EMC have several differentiating tiers in their product line,
so so some features are not available on the lower equipment, that is
on the higher.

Netapp is the winner

------SnapShot Technology

Aim : Ability to take snapshots on a regular basis with no/small
performance hit.

Netapp caters for upto 255 snapshots. EMC only 96 which for my needs
is fine.

With Netapp can do something like the following :

D.R Snapshot - runs every 5 minutes, and keeps a maximum of 12 (an
hours worth of copies).

File recovery Snapshot - Another schedule which backs up the same
data, but does it every 4 hours and keeps a maximum of 15 copies (3
taken every 4 days, every working day, so will have 5 working days)

Daily/Weekend backup Snapshot - Which backs up the same data but runs
only once a night with a maximum of 30 copies (will simulate our
nightly/weekly/monthly data).

This will greatly reduce our tape storage/transportation costs, saving
1000's a year.

Netapp is the clear winner

------Cost / Performance

Aim : Keep costs low while satisfying the criteria for Business
Continuity

No definitive costs as of yet, but it is looking likely that netapp
are going to undercut emc.

Raid-DP, Thin provisioning, De-Duplication, potentially far less disk
wastage/segregration compared to emc's traditional lun approach

------Pedigree / reliability in the industry

Emc are second to none in their quality control and support. Very
little hardware failures ever leave their factory.


that's what the EMC sales people will tell you. Can they back it up,
especially on the lowest end products?

This was years ago, when EMC first tried to compete with netapp- their NAS
offering was some silly rig of disks and dl360 servers, possibly running
windows, jammed into a pretty cabinet.

You might want to research the hardware and software side, but I'm pretty
sure you'll notice netapp is still way ahead of EMC in the NAS world.

EMC is service company, that has some storage products. Netapp is a
storage products company.



  #3  
Old January 4th 08, 04:00 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
Raju Mahala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20

Based on your observation its already obevious that NetApp is far away
than EMC. I haven't use EMC but some of friend has administer the EMC
NAS box and they were fedup with it. EMC is only best in Symmetrix SAN
box.

On Jan 4, 6:06*pm, Ray Breen wrote:
Hi Guys,

I am going through the process of business continuity and am looking
at using one of our remote sites as a hot site from a data and
services point of view. This is going to be using vmware / vmotion to
take care of the servers, and some site to site replication for the
data,


According to for vmware NetApp is better option because vmware server
file you can use iSCSI/NFS/FCP whatever you want with single interface
box.
You can go through with NetApp site and can find how netapp is best
suited for vmware.


The I.T department for the company consists of 3 guys, who have to do
everything from 1st line support to 3rd/4th so simplicity and
reliability of the equipment is a given.


Administration of NetApp is very easy. I was managing 5 clusters
alone.

------Inteface / Ease of Use

Aim : Ease of management for the I.T Team.

Emc requires two completely separate interfaces to the san and iscsi/
nas storage. This complicates the management and ongoing support. Net
only has one unified interface.

Netapp interface is easier to use.

NetApp is the clear winner


ABOSLUTELY RIGHT

------General Nas features

Aim: Most productive features

Netapp have been in the nas industry for many years, compared to EMC
who have only recently moved into this segment.
All Netapp features propagate down from the highest level to the
lowest. EMC have several differentiating tiers in their product line,
so so some features are not available on the lower equipment, that is
on the higher.

Netapp is the winner

------SnapShot Technology

Aim : Ability to take snapshots on a regular basis with no/small
performance hit.

Netapp caters for upto 255 snapshots. EMC only 96 which for my needs
is fine.

With Netapp can do something like the following :

D.R Snapshot - runs every 5 minutes, and keeps a maximum of 12 (an
hours worth of copies).

*File recovery Snapshot - Another schedule which backs up the same
data, but does it every 4 hours and keeps a maximum of 15 copies (3
taken every 4 days, every working day, so will have 5 working days)

Daily/Weekend backup Snapshot - Which backs up the same data but runs
only once a night with a maximum of 30 copies (will simulate our
nightly/weekly/monthly data).

This will greatly reduce our tape storage/transportation costs, saving
1000's a year.

Netapp is the clear winner


I think you should also check how EMC snapshot is taken and managed. I
had a POC of HP EVA NAS box and their snapshop management was
horrifing and almost manual task done by administrator so no use for
end user.

NetApp's snapshot technology is in built part of its FileSystem that
is WAFL.

------Fragmentation Concerns

Netapp's file system has benefits but also potential downsides with
the way that it writes data. General recommendations are that over
time, and especially if the aggregate is near capacity, performance
can be noticeably affected.

Does anyone have anything to add to this?

Thanks in advance

Ray


Yes here its little bit worry if usable size by data (not allocated to
volume) is nearly to aggregate capacity then performance may degrade
to find out free block it may not be able get contineous chunk.
This thing has to be taken care and another thing need to take care is
that, don't add disks in 2 or 3 chunks. Always try to add disks
atleast half of the raid size in one go. Best is one full raid group
size.


- Raju
  #4  
Old January 5th 08, 09:28 AM posted to comp.arch.storage
Faeandar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 191
Default Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 02:06:43 -0800 (PST), Ray Breen
wrote:

Not much to add but the few comments below.


Emc are second to none in their quality control and support. Very
little hardware failures ever leave their factory.


I've had very good support from NetApp so I would not say EMC is a
runaway leader by any stretch of the imagination.


------Fragmentation Concerns

Netapp's file system has benefits but also potential downsides with
the way that it writes data. General recommendations are that over
time, and especially if the aggregate is near capacity, performance
can be noticeably affected.


*ANY* file system will begin to degrade at 80% utilization and above.
There are two key concepts to understand when it comes to NetApp vs
the rest. First, expanding a volume or aggregate needs to be done in
chunks. A shelf or more at a time is preferrable. You want a nice
wide stripe width and 14 drives will manage that usually.
Second, there are no such things as random writes to a filer. The
NVRAM writes in full 512MB chunks (or whatever size your filer holds)
so every write is a large stripe width. And since writes are one of
the biggest performance hits in a storage system you avoid it nicely
with a filer. Not entirely of course, but moreso than most storage
systems.

~F
  #5  
Old January 16th 08, 10:43 AM posted to comp.arch.storage
Ray Breen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20

Hi Guys,

Thanks everyone for their thoughts and comments, they are valued. i am
at the stage now, that i need to decide in the couple of weeks which
way i am going. At the moment, its still a close call but i have not
had a definitive quote back from netapp yet, which i suspect will
significantly undercut the comparable emc offering.

I will update this post once i have made some progress.

Thanks again
  #6  
Old January 20th 08, 03:30 AM posted to comp.arch.storage
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20

On Jan 4, 10:06*am, Ray Breen wrote:
Hi Guys,

I am going through the process of business continuity and am looking
at using one of our remote sites as a hot site from a data and
services point of view. This is going to be using vmware / vmotion to
take care of the servers, and some site to site replication for the
data,

The I.T department for the company consists of 3 guys, who have to do
everything from 1st line support to 3rd/4th so simplicity and
reliability of the equipment is a given.

Having narrowed down to two suppliers, namely netapp and Emc.Netapp
have recommended the Fas2050 and EMC the ns20. Both are nas products
with the capability of having fibre channel connectivity.

I am going to virtualise around 14 servers in total, with there being
2 exchange, 2 sql and various other supporting servers. The file is
going to be handled by the nas boxes.

My thoughts on the two nas systems based upon various demonstrations,
online research is based below.
Emc Vs Net App Comparison

------Inteface / Ease of Use

Aim : Ease of management for the I.T Team.

Emc requires two completely separate interfaces to the san and iscsi/
nas storage. This complicates the management and ongoing support. Net
only has one unified interface.

Netapp interface is easier to use.

NetApp is the clear winner

------General Nas features

Aim: Most productive features

Netapp have been in the nas industry for many years, compared to EMC
who have only recently moved into this segment.
All Netapp features propagate down from the highest level to the
lowest. EMC have several differentiating tiers in their product line,
so so some features are not available on the lower equipment, that is
on the higher.

Netapp is the winner

------SnapShot Technology

Aim : Ability to take snapshots on a regular basis with no/small
performance hit.

Netapp caters for upto 255 snapshots. EMC only 96 which for my needs
is fine.

With Netapp can do something like the following :

D.R Snapshot - runs every 5 minutes, and keeps a maximum of 12 (an
hours worth of copies).

*File recovery Snapshot - Another schedule which backs up the same
data, but does it every 4 hours and keeps a maximum of 15 copies (3
taken every 4 days, every working day, so will have 5 working days)

Daily/Weekend backup Snapshot - Which backs up the same data but runs
only once a night with a maximum of 30 copies (will simulate our
nightly/weekly/monthly data).

This will greatly reduce our tape storage/transportation costs, saving
1000's a year.

Netapp is the clear winner

------Cost / Performance

Aim : Keep costs low while satisfying the criteria for Business
Continuity

No definitive costs as of yet, but it is looking likely that netapp
are going to undercut emc.

Raid-DP, Thin provisioning, De-Duplication, potentially far less disk
wastage/segregration compared to emc's traditional lun approach

------Pedigree / reliability in the industry

Emc are second to none in their quality control and support. Very
little hardware failures ever leave their factory.

------Fragmentation Concerns

Netapp's file system has benefits but also potential downsides with
the way that it writes data. General recommendations are that over
time, and especially if the aggregate is near capacity, performance
can be noticeably affected.

Does anyone have anything to add to this?

Thanks in advance

Ray



Hi Ray,

My responses for what its worth - If you are going for one of the EMC
celerra boxes.. DONT!, they ar cumbersome to support, work ok (just
ok) when they do behave, but when they break - the are horrendous.

NetAPP are a far easier box to work with, and the interface is very
obvious. If your IT structure is as explained - you wantsomething that
is quick to workaroud, and netapp fits well here (for the record,
celerra command line is also a pain).

For the record - i also believe the type of storage (and use of
VMWare) that you are deploying is wrong for the purpose... You mention
SQL and Exchange... You mention no size of userbase... But the nature
of exchange is horrible, from a storage perspective, it is totally
random in nature, and for read performance it needs to be platformed
appropriately. Also - again, dependant on user size, exchange (and
SQL) tend to drive CPU quite hard - if you concurrently load these,
and they becomebusy at the same time you are going to suffer horrible
performance!
Both SQL and Exchange require high spec of machine and also
performance around i/o subsystems...

If you want some more details - please feel free to drop me an email

cheers,

stuart.
  #7  
Old January 25th 08, 04:58 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
Ray Breen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20

On Jan 20, 2:30*am, "
wrote:
On Jan 4, 10:06*am, Ray Breen wrote:





Hi Guys,


I am going through the process of business continuity and am looking
at using one of our remote sites as a hot site from a data and
services point of view. This is going to be using vmware / vmotion to
take care of the servers, and some site to site replication for the
data,


The I.T department for the company consists of 3 guys, who have to do
everything from 1st line support to 3rd/4th so simplicity and
reliability of the equipment is a given.


Having narrowed down to two suppliers, namelynetappandEmc.Netapp
have recommended the Fas2050 andEMCthe ns20. Both are nas products
with the capability of having fibre channel connectivity.


I am going to virtualise around 14 servers in total, with there being
2 exchange, 2 sql and various other supporting servers. The file is
going to be handled by the nas boxes.


My thoughts on the two nas systems based upon various demonstrations,
online research is based below.
EmcVs Net App Comparison


------Inteface / Ease of Use


Aim : Ease of management for the I.T Team.


Emcrequires two completely separate interfaces to the san and iscsi/
nas storage. This complicates the management and ongoing support. Net
only has one unified interface.


Netappinterface is easier to use.


NetAppis the clear winner


------General Nas features


Aim: Most productive features


Netapphave been in the nas industry for many years, compared toEMC
who have only recently moved into this segment.
AllNetappfeatures propagate down from the highest level to the
lowest.EMChave several differentiating tiers in their product line,
so so some features are not available on the lower equipment, that is
on the higher.


Netappis the winner


------SnapShot Technology


Aim : Ability to take snapshots on a regular basis with no/small
performance hit.


Netappcaters for upto 255 snapshots.EMConly 96 which for my needs
is fine.


WithNetappcan do something like the following :


D.R Snapshot - runs every 5 minutes, and keeps a maximum of 12 (an
hours worth of copies).


*File recovery Snapshot - Another schedule which backs up the same
data, but does it every 4 hours and keeps a maximum of 15 copies (3
taken every 4 days, every working day, so will have 5 working days)


Daily/Weekend backup Snapshot - Which backs up the same data but runs
only once a night with a maximum of 30 copies (will simulate our
nightly/weekly/monthly data).


This will greatly reduce our tape storage/transportation costs, saving
1000's a year.


Netappis the clear winner


------Cost / Performance


Aim : Keep costs low while satisfying the criteria for Business
Continuity


No definitive costs as of yet, but it is looking likely thatnetapp
are going to undercutemc.


Raid-DP, Thin provisioning, De-Duplication, potentially far less disk
wastage/segregration compared toemc'straditional lun approach


------Pedigree / reliability in the industry


Emcare second to none in their quality control and support. Very
little hardware failures ever leave their factory.


------Fragmentation Concerns


Netapp'sfile system has benefits but also potential downsides with
the way that it writes data. General recommendations are that over
time, and especially if the aggregate is near capacity, performance
can be noticeably affected.


Does anyone have anything to add to this?


Thanks in advance


Ray


Hi Ray,

My responses for what its worth - If you are going for one of theEMC
celerra boxes.. DONT!, they ar cumbersome to support, work ok (just
ok) when they do behave, but when they break - the are horrendous.

NetAPPare a far easier box to work with, and the interface is very
obvious. If your IT structure is as explained - you wantsomething that
is quick to workaroud, andnetappfits well here (for the record,
celerra command line is also a pain).

For the record - i also believe the type of storage (and use of
VMWare) that you are deploying is wrong for the purpose... You mention
SQL and Exchange... You mention no size of userbase... But the nature
of exchange is horrible, from a storage perspective, it is totally
random in nature, and for read performance it needs to be platformed
appropriately. Also - again, dependant on user size, exchange (and
SQL) tend to drive CPU quite hard - if you concurrently load these,
and they becomebusy at the same time you are going to suffer horrible
performance!
Both SQL and Exchange require high spec of machine and also
performance around i/o subsystems...

If you want some more details - please feel free to drop me an email

cheers,

stuart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Hi Stuart,

My userbase for exchange is around 150-200 users on one server and
about 80 on the other, the total store size on the main server is
about 80gb, and around 20gb on the smaller one. This is well within
the vmware capacity planning exercise. Our average cpu utilisation
among our current servers is only 3%.

The sql total db size is about 5gb so not a concern at the moment.

Thanks for the comments
  #8  
Old January 28th 08, 03:32 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
Frédéric VANNIÈRE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20

Hello,

I need to choose between FAS2050 and EMC NS20. I've seen EMC's
showroom and their product seems pretty.

I need very good NFS performances for emails (many small files) and
web hosting. I'd also like to use iSCSI ou FC for MySQL servers.


Ray Breen a écrit :
------Inteface / Ease of Use

Aim : Ease of management for the I.T Team.

Emc requires two completely separate interfaces to the san and iscsi/
nas storage. This complicates the management and ongoing support. Net
only has one unified interface.


It's not what I've seen. I loved the Red Hat management server (Dell)
which provides a unified interface and the ability to create scripts
(cron, user list generation ....).


------SnapShot Technology

Aim : Ability to take snapshots on a regular basis with no/small
performance hit.

Netapp caters for upto 255 snapshots. EMC only 96 which for my needs
is fine.

With Netapp can do something like the following :

D.R Snapshot - runs every 5 minutes, and keeps a maximum of 12 (an
hours worth of copies).

File recovery Snapshot - Another schedule which backs up the same
data, but does it every 4 hours and keeps a maximum of 15 copies (3
taken every 4 days, every working day, so will have 5 working days)

Daily/Weekend backup Snapshot - Which backs up the same data but runs
only once a night with a maximum of 30 copies (will simulate our
nightly/weekly/monthly data).

This will greatly reduce our tape storage/transportation costs, saving
1000's a year.

Netapp is the clear winner



EMC NS20 can put snapshots on a different LUN (15k drives for files and
SATA for snapshots) and can be accessed in a hidden directory. EMC
explains me that a snaphot had a write performance impact on EMC (need
to copy the file before doing a modification)



Regards,



--
Frédéric VANNIÈRE 231 rue Saint-Honoré
Directeur Technique 75001 PARIS - FRANCE
PLANET-WORK Tél : 0891 024 424
http://www.planet-work.fr/ Fax : 0141 797 861
  #9  
Old January 29th 08, 06:57 PM posted to comp.arch.storage
news.verizon.net[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Thoughts on Netapp Fas2050 and Emc ns20

I suggest you stick with Netapp if you are looking at NAS... they do it
best. For a FC solution I believe that EMC CX line is a good product line
but I would see Celera into an account unless they insisted on EMC.
"Frédéric VANNIÈRE" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I need to choose between FAS2050 and EMC NS20. I've seen EMC's
showroom and their product seems pretty.

I need very good NFS performances for emails (many small files) and
web hosting. I'd also like to use iSCSI ou FC for MySQL servers.


Ray Breen a écrit :
------Inteface / Ease of Use

Aim : Ease of management for the I.T Team.

Emc requires two completely separate interfaces to the san and iscsi/
nas storage. This complicates the management and ongoing support. Net
only has one unified interface.


It's not what I've seen. I loved the Red Hat management server (Dell)
which provides a unified interface and the ability to create scripts
(cron, user list generation ....).


------SnapShot Technology

Aim : Ability to take snapshots on a regular basis with no/small
performance hit.

Netapp caters for upto 255 snapshots. EMC only 96 which for my needs
is fine.

With Netapp can do something like the following :

D.R Snapshot - runs every 5 minutes, and keeps a maximum of 12 (an
hours worth of copies).

File recovery Snapshot - Another schedule which backs up the same
data, but does it every 4 hours and keeps a maximum of 15 copies (3
taken every 4 days, every working day, so will have 5 working days)

Daily/Weekend backup Snapshot - Which backs up the same data but runs
only once a night with a maximum of 30 copies (will simulate our
nightly/weekly/monthly data).

This will greatly reduce our tape storage/transportation costs, saving
1000's a year.

Netapp is the clear winner



EMC NS20 can put snapshots on a different LUN (15k drives for files and
SATA for snapshots) and can be accessed in a hidden directory. EMC
explains me that a snaphot had a write performance impact on EMC (need
to copy the file before doing a modification)



Regards,



--
Frédéric VANNIÈRE 231 rue Saint-Honoré
Directeur Technique 75001 PARIS - FRANCE
PLANET-WORK Tél : 0891 024 424
http://www.planet-work.fr/ Fax : 0141 797 861


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EMC vs Netapp NAS [email protected] Storage & Hardrives 3 October 7th 05 02:18 AM
NetApp VS EMC Kiman,Jang Storage & Hardrives 14 July 29th 05 10:56 PM
NetApp Matt Baldwin Storage & Hardrives 6 July 19th 05 11:48 PM
Converintg NetApp Netcache to NetApp Filer Ronen A Storage & Hardrives 1 June 27th 05 11:09 AM
emc v/s. netapp vidyesh Storage & Hardrives 7 September 27th 04 09:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.