|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > August 2004 > emc ns 700 v/s. netapp f 980
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
emc ns 700 v/s. netapp f 980
|
|
| vidyesh 2004-08-18, 5:45 pm |
| hi all
i am comparing a emc ns 700 (4 data movers) with a netapp f 980.
the emc box scales to 30 tb while the netapp one scales to 32 tb.
seemingly both seem equivalent but emc is offering the advantage of
mixing serial ata disks with fibre channel disks in the same chassis.
anyone used any of these or done any comparatives before please let me
know.
this is a big investment for my company abt a million usd and need to
get it right.
thanks in advance
| |
| Net Worker 2004-08-18, 5:45 pm |
| NS700 with 4 data movers? All the EMC docs talk about just 2 data movers
max. If its more than 2 data movers, then you may need a symmetrix backend
so that rules out mixing serial ata disks with fiber and THAT is not their
NS700 series.
Beware of EMC's sales talk. we have been bitten by them a few times. We just
completed a project that replaced all our EMC celerras with NetApp gear. I
can go on with a list of issues we have with EMC.
-G
"vidyesh" <vidyeshk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cef376a.0408180641.4acd9904@posting.google.com...
> hi all
> i am comparing a emc ns 700 (4 data movers) with a netapp f 980.
> the emc box scales to 30 tb while the netapp one scales to 32 tb.
> seemingly both seem equivalent but emc is offering the advantage of
> mixing serial ata disks with fibre channel disks in the same chassis.
> anyone used any of these or done any comparatives before please let me
> know.
> this is a big investment for my company abt a million usd and need to
> get it right.
> thanks in advance
| |
|
| On 18 Aug 2004 07:41:23 -0700, vidyeshk@gmail.com (vidyesh) wrote:
>i am comparing a emc ns 700 (4 data movers) with a netapp f 980.
>the emc box scales to 30 tb while the netapp one scales to 32 tb.
>seemingly both seem equivalent but emc is offering the advantage of
>mixing serial ata disks with fibre channel disks in the same chassis.
>anyone used any of these or done any comparatives before please let me
>know.
First off - is this a point solution, or is it part of your
organization's storage strategy? Do you (or do you plan to) have any
other EMC or NetApp kit?
I wouldn't be too worried about the 30TB/32TB difference. If you get
to that quantity of data, 2TB isn't going to keep the wolf from the
door for very long.
To my mind, NetApp kit is great, and their software *rocks*. Sys
admins love it because it's intuitive and works well.
I've also used Celerra and I liked them too. The Data Movers were
really fast, but the GUI software at the time sucked - though I
recently saw a demo of the latest GUI and it was much better, but
still not as good as NetApp. If you like the unix-like CLI you'll get
on great.
Personally, I feel comfortable using NetApp kit in a mid-size
environment. Outside of that, I think NetApp are slightly weaker. If
you think you're going to hit big league, I'd go with EMC - they have
almost everything you could possibly want, all from one vendor.
I've never seen a 4 Data Mover NS700. Is this really two NS700 head
units with disk behind? Or could it be NS700 Gateways?
Now, if you're planning to expand to accomodate SAN based hosts also,
I'd go for EMC. I feel that NetApp work great in NAS-only
environments but their SAN side is much weaker.
Hope this is useful.
HVB.
| |
| Faeandar 2004-08-18, 5:45 pm |
|
>
>First off - is this a point solution, or is it part of your
>organization's storage strategy? Do you (or do you plan to) have any
>other EMC or NetApp kit?
This is a good point. if you already have one of the vendors in house
it makes some sense to continue, but not always.
>
>Personally, I feel comfortable using NetApp kit in a mid-size
>environment. Outside of that, I think NetApp are slightly weaker. If
>you think you're going to hit big league, I'd go with EMC - they have
>almost everything you could possibly want, all from one vendor.
I think NetApp is fine in a very large environment. I have over 200TB
installed and they work well. I can't stand EMC, based primarily on
their sales demons. I had one say to me once that they had to offer
raid5 because they couldn't continue to charge their customers for
double the storage anymore. Really?! (idiot)
>Now, if you're planning to expand to accomodate SAN based hosts also,
>I'd go for EMC. I feel that NetApp work great in NAS-only
>environments but their SAN side is much weaker.
NetApp SAN blows IMO. Not from a performance or scaleability
standpoint but purely on the basis that you can't upgrade the OS
without a reboot, and for DA fiber hosts that is a bad thing. I use
them for most things outside of that; NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, databases,
etc.
>
>Hope this is useful.
Ditto.
~F
| |
|
| On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:48:42 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[I wrote]
>
>I think NetApp is fine in a very large environment. I have over 200TB
>installed and they work well. I can't stand EMC, based primarily on
>their sales demons.
I'd be interested to know how you've found managing that much NetApp
storage. Are you using any of the NuView software?
I was referring the OP to investigate the manageability of the
storage. I think EMC have a pretty solid toolsets for managing large
scale environments.
I've also found EMC's reps to be hard work sometimes, but then reps
are reps and they always have to spin some story to make themselves
feel like they're doing their job.
Someone told me once: what's the difference between an EMC rep and a
pitbull? The dog eventually lets go.
I pretty much decide for myself what I'm going to buy (applies to
everything), and if I need to know something I'll go ask someone
technical. I let the reps do their little barn dance just to keep
them happy (they leave me alone quicker too). ;-)
HVB
| |
| Mike Thompson 2004-08-19, 2:45 am |
| if it's only NAS that you need (CIFS and NFS only), ask Netapp about
their Spinserver system. It rocks. I'm running about 34TB of it now,
and the feature set is unreal.
| |
| vidyesh 2004-08-19, 7:45 am |
| till now we are a netapp shop. have deployed abt 25 tb of netapp <
this is big from india standards >. however emc is giving really
attractive prices. we will be expanding to abt 60 - 70 tb within the
next 12 months. we are a nas only company. dont see us going to san
very quickly. so a flexibility of san hosts etc. does not actually
mean much to us.
have you done any evaluations specifically for netapp v/s. emc in san
boxes which can help us take this decision.
thanks for the help
Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<i5c7i0t0n0jk4ppn3r3g7u1mfe6vducotc@4ax.com>...
>
> This is a good point. if you already have one of the vendors in house
> it makes some sense to continue, but not always.
>
>
> I think NetApp is fine in a very large environment. I have over 200TB
> installed and they work well. I can't stand EMC, based primarily on
> their sales demons. I had one say to me once that they had to offer
> raid5 because they couldn't continue to charge their customers for
> double the storage anymore. Really?! (idiot)
>
>
>
> NetApp SAN blows IMO. Not from a performance or scaleability
> standpoint but purely on the basis that you can't upgrade the OS
> without a reboot, and for DA fiber hosts that is a bad thing. I use
> them for most things outside of that; NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, databases,
> etc.
>
>
> Ditto.
>
> ~F
| |
| vidyesh 2004-08-19, 7:45 am |
| ryt - it is basically 2 ns 700s with 4 data movers. no it is not a
symmetric backend. it is a cx 700 backend.
cud u tell me the issues u had with emc in a bit more detail as tht
will really help me see through their sales talk.
thanks and regards
vidyesh
"Net Worker" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<pMKUc.1980$Mj5.1187@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> NS700 with 4 data movers? All the EMC docs talk about just 2 data movers
> max. If its more than 2 data movers, then you may need a symmetrix backend
> so that rules out mixing serial ata disks with fiber and THAT is not their
> NS700 series.
> Beware of EMC's sales talk. we have been bitten by them a few times. We just
> completed a project that replaced all our EMC celerras with NetApp gear. I
> can go on with a list of issues we have with EMC.
> -G
>
> "vidyesh" <vidyeshk@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9cef376a.0408180641.4acd9904@posting.google.com...
| |
| Rob Turk 2004-08-19, 7:45 am |
| "vidyesh" <vidyeshk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cef376a.0408190156.6809e9d1@posting.google.com...
> till now we are a netapp shop. have deployed abt 25 tb of netapp <
> this is big from india standards >. however emc is giving really
> attractive prices. we will be expanding to abt 60 - 70 tb within the
> next 12 months. we are a nas only company. dont see us going to san
> very quickly. so a flexibility of san hosts etc. does not actually
> mean much to us.
> have you done any evaluations specifically for netapp v/s. emc in san
> boxes which can help us take this decision.
> thanks for the help
>
Stay with NetApps. You will be happy.
Rob
| |
| vidyesh 2004-08-19, 5:45 pm |
| did u buy it from netapp or from spinnaker systems before they got
bought out by netapp
"Mike Thompson" <mike.thompson@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<cg1o4r$dne@odbk17.prod.google.com>...
> if it's only NAS that you need (CIFS and NFS only), ask Netapp about
> their Spinserver system. It rocks. I'm running about 34TB of it now,
> and the feature set is unreal.
| |
| Faeandar 2004-08-19, 8:45 pm |
| On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:56:35 +0100, HVB <devnull@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:48:42 GMT, Faeandar <mr_castalot@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>[I wrote]
>
>I'd be interested to know how you've found managing that much NetApp
>storage. Are you using any of the NuView software?
nope, just scripts and an allocation web page. we have DFM but I
personally don;t use it much, although I may start since they produced
an API (better info to be had now).
~F
| |
| Faeandar 2004-08-19, 8:45 pm |
| On 19 Aug 2004 02:56:36 -0700, vidyeshk@gmail.com (vidyesh) wrote:
>till now we are a netapp shop. have deployed abt 25 tb of netapp <
>this is big from india standards >. however emc is giving really
>attractive prices. we will be expanding to abt 60 - 70 tb within the
>next 12 months. we are a nas only company. dont see us going to san
>very quickly. so a flexibility of san hosts etc. does not actually
>mean much to us.
>have you done any evaluations specifically for netapp v/s. emc in san
>boxes which can help us take this decision.
>thanks for the help
EMC is practically giving away their products because they are having
problems keeping NetApp at bay. I've heard of several shops halting
EMC purchases in favor of filers, and I've not heard this from NetApp
but rather the shop admins. By contrast I have yet to hear a NetApp
shop going the other way. New storage users frequently go with EMC
due to the price, but the value is just not there imo.
I agree with Mike; stay with NetApp, you'll be happy. Especially if
you are primarily NAS, they are nigh unbeatable in overall NAS
functions.
Of course the SpinFS stuff is very cool, but I just don't have the
time to deal with it. Plus we rely heavily on Snap* so it would be
difficult to integrate it, and with the code base of Ontap and SpinFS
on the way to merging I just didn't see it being worth the time.
As for tests between EMC and NetApp, I just never bothered. Call me
bigoted but I just haven't found anything out there that compares to
NetApp let alone surpasses it (Spinnaker not withstanding).
~F
| |
| jOwLeY 2004-08-22, 5:45 pm |
| well... here is my penny-s worth..
1. ns700 only has two datamovers - I currently have 3 of them in the lab,
and this is defintely the case.
2. you CANNOT mix ata dn scsi on the same shelf within one of these arrays,
but you can have complete shelves of either ata or SCSI - if you would want
to, this is another question
3. If you already have an EMC environment, and are using products such as
ECC etc - then this does offer a single point of management - which is a
good thing
4. If you want to inter-site replication, say prod & DR, and want to do it
over an IP network, with slow links..... NS700 SUCKS!
5. Cost - again, if you are already a big emc customer - then you probably
get a good discount.
6 . If you are new to NAS and SAN - then the netapp offering is great, all
the functionality under the sun.
7. Support in a production environment - this is where EMC really excel, and
this is second to none... netapp I am not so sure about.
thats it for now I guess.... other than if you are looking at management
products, dont chose EMC on the back of ecc - it sucks! Look at something
like Creek Path's toolkit.
"vidyesh" <vidyeshk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cef376a.0408180641.4acd9904@posting.google.com...
> hi all
> i am comparing a emc ns 700 (4 data movers) with a netapp f 980.
> the emc box scales to 30 tb while the netapp one scales to 32 tb.
> seemingly both seem equivalent but emc is offering the advantage of
> mixing serial ata disks with fibre channel disks in the same chassis.
> anyone used any of these or done any comparatives before please let me
> know.
> this is a big investment for my company abt a million usd and need to
> get it right.
> thanks in advance
| |
| Jesper Monsted 2004-08-23, 7:46 am |
| "jOwLeY" <jowley@net-user.org> wrote in
news:MD_Vc.186787$28.167914@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> 2. you CANNOT mix ata dn scsi on the same shelf within one of these
> arrays, but you can have complete shelves of either ata or SCSI - if
> you would want to, this is another question
FC, not SCSI, otherwise correct.
> 3. If you already have an EMC environment, and are using products such
> as ECC etc - then this does offer a single point of management - which
> is a good thing
If you happen to think that ECC is worth the CD's the software is burnt on,
yes.
I'll take the celerra command line over the web gui or ECC any day.
> 4. If you want to inter-site replication, say prod & DR, and want to
> do it over an IP network, with slow links..... NS700 SUCKS!
They recommend using Symmetrix SRDF with the CNS-series for that.
I'm using a CNS14 with two data movers and a CX600 backend. It's not great,
but it's not complete crap. I'd vote netapp unless you really need the
clustering stuff, in which case celerra is, unfortunately, the way to go.
--
/Jesper Monsted
| |
| Thanatos 2004-08-27, 5:46 pm |
| Hi vidyesh,
From a raw performance perspective (see specsfs benchmarks, and break down
to per fs), these are roughly comparable boxes.
So, to compare them you need to look beyond that.
How important is it to you that the data remains uncorrupted after an outage
or hardware failure?
Bear in mind, the Celerra uses UxFS, a traditional update-in-place
filesystem. For the Celerra, on-disk consistency cannot be guaranteed - EMC
technology simply REDUCES your risk.
NetApp's WAFL filesystem never updates in-place, so filesystem consistency
"on-disk" is always guaranteed after an outage or hardware failure. This is
true even if the NVRAM fails, since (for NAS purposes anyway, including as
app storage i.e. Oracle) it logs update pre-fs processing.
Just something to think about. How important is data recoverability to you?
"vidyesh" <vidyeshk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cef376a.0408180641.4acd9904@posting.google.com...
> hi all
> i am comparing a emc ns 700 (4 data movers) with a netapp f 980.
> the emc box scales to 30 tb while the netapp one scales to 32 tb.
> seemingly both seem equivalent but emc is offering the advantage of
> mixing serial ata disks with fibre channel disks in the same chassis.
> anyone used any of these or done any comparatives before please let me
> know.
> this is a big investment for my company abt a million usd and need to
> get it right.
> thanks in advance
| |
| Bill Todd 2004-08-27, 5:46 pm |
|
"Thanatos" <dgahan@europe.com> wrote in message
news:412f425b$0$22835$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Hi vidyesh,
>
> From a raw performance perspective (see specsfs benchmarks, and break down
> to per fs), these are roughly comparable boxes.
>
> So, to compare them you need to look beyond that.
>
> How important is it to you that the data remains uncorrupted after an
outage
> or hardware failure?
>
> Bear in mind, the Celerra uses UxFS, a traditional update-in-place
> filesystem. For the Celerra, on-disk consistency cannot be guaranteed -
EMC
> technology simply REDUCES your risk.
>
> NetApp's WAFL filesystem never updates in-place, so filesystem consistency
> "on-disk" is always guaranteed after an outage or hardware failure. This
is
> true even if the NVRAM fails, since (for NAS purposes anyway, including as
> app storage i.e. Oracle) it logs update pre-fs processing.
>
> Just something to think about. How important is data recoverability to
you?
People who don't know what they're talking about usually are less
conspicuously public in advertising their ignorance. But that's just a
matter of pride: people who make erroneous claims about competitors'
products might actually face legal liability.
There is nothing intrinsic to update-in-place file systems that prevents
data-consistency guarantees. A fully-journaled update-in-place file system
can provide guarantees every bit as solid as WAFL does - and even better, if
WAFL can lose the latest updates should its NVRAM fail.
Celerra's file system is hardly a vanilla-flavored UFS: it was developed
from a DEC research Unix file system purchased (along with its development
group) by EMC in the mid-'90s. Its metadata updates are definitely
journaled, but I don't know whether data updates are. *If* data updates are
not journaled, the only manner in which WAFL might be superior (as long as
its NVRAM does not fail) would be in guaranteeing the atomicity of single
write requests: an in-place over-write that got interrupted after starting
and before completion would leave the target block range partially updated,
which would affect at worst the consistency of those blocks in the target
file, not the structural integrity or 'recoverability' of the file system as
a whole.
Of course, uninterruptible power supplies greatly reduce the risk of such
write interruptions, often to completely negligible levels with
Celerra-grade UPSs, and use of a stable (battery-backed) write-back cache in
the underlying storage (which I believe both the Symmetrix and the Clariion
storage available with Celerra provide) eliminates such risk completely even
without the use of a UPS. Other hardware faults tend to take any affected
disks completely out of service anyway, making any write interruption
irrelevant (the underlying RAID mechanisms guarantee that any disk which
survives should hold a valid copy of the data).
The bottom line is that if you have a decent UPS *or* are using underlying
storage fronted by a stable write-back cache, your data is far more likely
to be corrupted by human or software error than by *either* a Celerra or a
WAFL-based solution, which are effectively equivalent in safety.
- bill
|
|
|
|
|