Really???
"The reason that this is not a 50 per cent saving, as in the original guarantee programme, is according to Clifton because the V-Series has to use the third party suppliers' RAID technologies and not its own."
Something is a bit off here
By my math assuming best practices of both vendors (EMC DMX & NetApp) with 500GB sata drive. Configured with raid 6, 14+2 on both vendors (max size either one supports), both using snapshots.
500GB NetApp Drive = 423.8GB : Raw device usable (after "rightsizing" and byte conversion)
NetApp overhead:
Waffle = 10%
CoreDump = 1%
Aggr Reserve = 5%
Snap Reserve = 10%
Usable of 14+2 raidset = 4390.5GB
500GB DMX Drive = 476.9GB : Raw device usable (after "rightsizing" and byte conversion)
DMX Overhead:
Misc: = 0.02%
Snap Reserve = 10%
Usable of 14+2 raidset = 6007.6GB
The DMX is 26.9% more efficient at presenting the same physical quantity of disks than the NetApp to begin with, so they are already in the hole to begin with. Then they claim that they can get 50% more if they were to use NetApp disks instead of DMX disks... a total hump of 76.9%?
So if I allocate one terabyte of data on the DMX, NetApp is claiming that they would really only need 230.8GB of space. Color me skeptical of reality, I wonder what would happen if thin provisioning was turned on in the DMX...
Ohh... I see what they are doing. NetApp is allowed to use Raid-DP(and 4 if you read the guarantee DP is not a requirement for the guarantee), competitors are compared using Raid 1. NetApp is allowed to use snapshots, competitors are compared using full copies. NetApp is allowed to use thinprovisioning, competitors are compared only using thick volumes. So basically they are requiring their compeititors to use old tech (even though they have new available), but NetApp is of course allowed to use their newest tech.