* Posts by vwestin

2 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Jan 2012

EMC gives up the goods at storage shindig: VMAX3 speeds, feeds

vwestin
Pint

VMAX3 Updates

Hi Chris,

Thank you for this nice post. (**DISCLOSURE** I work for EMC) I would offer a couple of notes:

On the 100K/200K/400K, you discuss that they support 2/4/8 DAEs. I am sorry we were not more clear in the session. Each engine in each of the arrays can have up to 6 DAEs, each of which can be dense (120 x 2.5" drives) or standard (60 x 3.5" drives), or up to 720 x 2.5" drives per engine. The 100K can have up to 2 engines, the 200K can have up to 4 engines, and the 400K can have up to 8 engines. It seems that we presented this in a way that allowed confusion between the supported engine counts and the supported DAEs.

I would also note that the older (10K/20K/40K) systems support up to 16 x 8Gb or 8x 16Gb FC ports per engine. The new engines support up to 32x 16Gb FC ports per engine, providing 4x the host line rate (rather than double).

Again, thank you for the note of our new systems.

-Vince Westin, Technical Evangelist, EMC (www.linkedin.com/in/vincewestin/)

SpaceShipOne man, Nobel boffins: Don't panic on global warming

vwestin
Holmes

Starting with the premise of human activity...

The big challenge here is not to prove that the globe is warming or cooling. There are an amazing number of things that effect the global climate, and it is going to keep changing. I think most of the people on both sides of this issue agree that the climate is different from decade to decade.

The question is around man's contribution to, and possible control of, the changes. Sometimes we are ignorant of what we cause, and sometimes we are arrogant enough to think it all revolves around us. And somewhere in there is the truth.

Those who are asking that man’s production of CO2 be reduced start with the premise that man is the primary driver in the changes in global CO2 levels. There is the secondary premise that CO2 levels are the primary driver of global temperature change. Given all the variables in the second, I have so far focused on the first.

If man is the primary driver of global CO2 levels, then there should be a reasonable correlation between the changes in man’s production of CO2 (from fossil fuels) and the annual change in the global CO2 levels.  Given such a correlation, it seems clear that to then reduce the levels of human CO2 production could slow, or even reverse, the increases in global levels.

Unfortunately, the current data does not show a good correlation between the annual changes in CO2 levels and the annual rate of fossil fuel consumption. The global levels, measured in Antarctica for 20 years, do show an always increasing trend. However, the rate of increase each year varies wildly. You can find the data here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html

And a summary of global carbon output here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html

You can build a statistical analysis to look for the correlation between the rate of annual increase in global CO2 (I use the December numbers, but the annual averages work as well) and the rate of annual increase in human CO2 production. My calculations on the data show no meaningful correlation at all, which makes it difficult to believe that they are causally related. Here is a small sample, during times of fluctuation in human activity:

Year Human CO2       Atmosphere CO2

1999-2000       up 2.46%          up 0.24%

2000-2001       up 2.40%          up 0.64%

2001-2002       up 0.93%          up 0.56%

2002-2003       up 5.52%          up 0.42%

2003-2004       up 4.95%          up 0.62%

If the human production of CO2 is driving the global CO2 levels, then I am sure there is a model that explains why they are not changing in ways that are more closely related.