Reply to post: Removing the SCSI Protocol

Between you and NVMe: NetApp dishes on drives and fabric access

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Removing the SCSI Protocol

".... just about any controller today from any vendor will be bottlenecked by more than a few SSDs. "

So removing that massive SCSI Protocol overhead will free up enough CPU Cycles to utilise even fewer NVMe drives ???

"...The raw number of IOPs capable from an SSD is staggering, but the value is limited without storage efficiencies, quality of service, data protection, management and other resiliency technologies that a storage controller provides with its onboard software."

I call BS -

The reason so many customers got caught out by FAS systems falling over were the IOPS created by NetApp "storage efficiency" features built into the Ontap Software. Even the most experienced NetApp Experts couldn't tame the unpredictable workload behaviours of these systems.

Never have I heard NetApp tell a customer: Sorry, your Datastores disconnected because perfstat (performance statistics collection tool) shows your system has too much SCSI Protocol overhead.

Usually there were too many IOPS - please contact sales for another shelf. Back-to-back CP's.... Or certain CPU domains were overloaded. Because even XEON processors with many threads are useless when Ontap sucks at distributing the workload efficiently.

Disclaimer: I worked for NetApp

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020