Posts by zbmwzm3 39 posts • joined 8 Nov 2012
Nothing wrong with using multiple ways of authentication as long as you use them together, you know as is best practice. I believe Star trek used biometrics on the cellular level, but also just good ol'anal probing for most cases. Data hated it because it would tickle his hard drive.
There is always the option NOT to use biometrics and use just a passcode OR both. The fact of the matter is that this technology will improve over time and some people that prefer the convenience of unlocking the phone by looking at it will use. In that case security it not their largest concern and there are always going to be people like that. This so far is the best implementation of face ID on a smartphone so deal with it.
IBM TS1155 tapes already hold 15TB uncompressed. Tapes are same size as LTO tapes also. LTO is always one generation behind IBM. However IBM is involved with LTO consortium and basically it's IBM technology filtering down to LTO anyways.
https://www.ibm.com/us-en/marketplace/ts1155/details#product-header-top
The iphone 8 has a better repair score than the S8+, win. It also has a much faster CPU/GPU, looking at the performance reviews in some cases 2x, again win. It also has a better camera, win. Doesn't seem like such a bad deal after all now actually.
Camera: https://www.dxomark.com/apple-iphone-8-reviewed-a-solid-performance-upgrade-over-the-iphone-7/
I'm glad that Apple put LTE in the watch and consider this version #1 with LTE, because it is. The watch isn't actually released yet so a patch may come out to fix SOME of the issues. I'm not buying a smart watch in general until I find that they are actually useful for ME, but adding LTE is a step in the right direction. Apple needs to invest more in developing the Apple watch and less on the margins for now until it really takes off.
In order for smart watches to be successful they need to:
1.) Improve battery life so they last as long as a smart phone. (see #3)
2.)Work as a stand alone device, complete with a larger oled screens, with more apps, processing power. (apple, how bad they may be in some regards still makes the best chips for smart devices.)
3.) Put tech in the watch band, perhaps the battery, or LTE chip in the band itself. It's very obvious this needs to be done in order to make the small footprint of the watch itself better. Apple COULD invest in the R&D since they have the money, but in any case hopefully someone will invest in it. Perhaps the watch band could have modules that are interchangeable and provide the watch even more functionality
I'm talking about something entirely different "Flexarray". Each disk from the E-series storage is seen as a LUN from the Netapp controller side. In Flexarray terms the max lun size is currently determined by the largest supported drive size which currently sits at 6TB. Again I'm talking about 'Flexarray" its a completely different beast than traditional luns on the Netapp using DS4243 or DS2246 storage hardware.
Now if I could upgrade my 7-mode systems to 8.3.x and then convert it to a switchless c-mode with very minimal downtime that would be great. Though the CFT feature is a good step in the right direction and depending on how long the downtime is that may be the way I upgrade going forward.
So yes I'm a Netapp customer and at work we have a couple of C-mode clusters(Each over 8PB in size) and overall I don't have many issues with it. With C-mode I can migrate volumes between older disks and newer disks non-disruptively, move data lifs to less loaded controllers if needed and grow the system out without disruption - compare that to 7-mode.
Overall it has been very solid so really the biggest complaint is migrating from 7-mode to C-mode and not C-mode itself. With that being said there are a couple of things that give me stress with C-mode. One is that it doesn't support sync snapmirror like 7-mode and for whatever reason the developers here refuse async. That's been our hold back for migrating the rest of our systems. The other issue at least for me is setting up 'Flexarray' to connect to their e-series systems. It is a time consuming task so that is costly and the overhead that Ontap takes on top of what the e-series already took is quite a bit. Lastly the Netapp controllers can only manage lun sizes up to 6TB but the E-series could export much larger luns so I'm waiting for that to be addressed in the Flexarray code. However once it's set up it works very well and we haven't had any complaints. All in all it's been very very solid and we haven't suffered an outage or data corruption and performance has been fine for what we use it for.
Waiting for sync snapmirror in CDOT. Need it because we run a true active/active at multiple sites. Since we can't do that now we are just stuck in 7-mode. Not sure if there is any one else in this situation but if Netapp supports synchronous snapmirror in C-DOT I think it will help sales. I personally like C-DOT, but yes it's definitely more complicated to setup than a 7-mode system.
I'm on the other side of the fence not as a reseller but as a engineer. From my point of view it is coming down to cost and features. With more competitors having similar or even better features than Netapp it's starting to show up on their balance sheet. As a short lazy example Raid-DP is getting long in the tooth. They are doing work with Ontap 8.3 for better implantation with the cloud and that will help bridge the gap for some SMB, but I don't know for how long or how successful it will be. I hope it works great because it's to my benefit. I'm actually still waiting for cloud storage to become much cheaper since I'm dealing with over a 100PB's. If Netapp can reduce maintenance costs and reduce the cost of the new capacity based licensing that will help(at least in the short term). The whole 7-mode to C-mode has been difficult so I can understand that some businesses decided to go in a different direction at that point and it's perfectly logically that they at least look at their options. So no, no it's not SO SIMPLE. I'll leave you with a quote from "The DUDE" who said. "You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's"
I agree with you that Netapp has been caught flat footed. I also think it great and all for your pure flash arrays, but they are still too expensive for the density you get. Pure is going for a specific market whereas Netapp has multiple markets it's after. Specifically I'm thinking if you're dealing with multiple PB's of data, it's not likely that you're looking for a flash array.
I don't even have a google anything account, but I have an amazon prime account. So that is another reason. I could of gone either way but after having time with both I sincerely like the kindle HD a bit more. Not that I would mind two at once but that's a different topic.
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021