Posts by CoreInfMan 9 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jun 2015
Except it is true. We do have that many IP address'. I never said how we'd us them but all 633,825,300,114,114,700,748,351,602,688 IPv6 address' are ours to use as we like.
I was just quoting the number to make a point about how many more address' there are on IPv6 compared to IPv4 that will mean every server should be able to have a publicly routable address' to the OP's question.
There's so many address' that there's no need for NAT'ing unless it's for security reasons. To out it in perspective my company currently has 512 public ipv4 address. We have recently received our ipv6 allocation and (I'm on the train so can't remember the exact number) We've got north or a trillion trillion IP address' with that many ips we can have one for every server. So there's no need to use the private space ipv4 address. Each server can have its own public IP address'.
Maybe just try taking some points away from this Mike or coming back with some counter arguments to criticism instead of labeling some of your customers nerds. Other NetApp posters have.
I doubt it would do NetApp any good if I announced where I work, my name and my job title when I ask a few questions and express my opinions, of which some are negative. I really like NetApp tech. Anything around snapshots can't be beaten and there is probably no other vendor that has such a rounded product in terms of features offered.
This is a massive step forward for you but lets not get carried away and think the rest of the market are now way behind NetApp. Knowing your weakness' as well as your strengths is key to success.
Thanks Daniel. Our current heads (3250's) are really pushing the CPU's without doing a massive amount of IO so with shackles off disk wise, I would just be a little worried that the CPU's wouldn't keep up.
I've already in contact with my sales rep. High detail monitoring sounds great as OCPM doesn't cut the mustard for me. On Command Insight is a good product but it's too expensive.
I assume you're talking about over the 2 nodes though. Unless 1 node can share CPU resource with another that's 16 cores on a node, not 32. Seeing as one volume has to live one node (discounting infinite volumes which seem to have quite a few limitations around them) then you shouldn't talk about a HA pair as being one big unit to make it sound more powerful.
HI Daniel,
A 7 year flat maintenance is good. Getting controller uplift automatically every few years as part of this would put you level with PURE. The main point of this release for me (as an existing Netapp customer with a fairly large estate) is the price. Having all SSD attached to a FAS has been a lot more expensive than the other players in the market. Hopefully this price drop will bring you more inline with the PURE, Solidfire and other startups. With the addition of inline compression and a slightly less, but still seemingly post process, dedupe, you've got the features that the EF series has been missing to make it comparable to the AFA startups.
One concern I'd have is the CPU. There doesn't seem to a massive amount of grunt in the boxes to cope with lots of IO as well as compression, dedupe, snapshots and snapmirror all running at the same time.
The other concern is monitoring. The current Netapp offerings are not as slick as EMC (ExtremeIO), PURE, NIMBLE or Solidfire.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
