Re: 3PAR VSA unlikely?
I too see the likelihood of a 3PAR VSA unlikely. The F200 is not a demo toy, it is a dual controller system, the only difference between it and the F400 is it is a 2-controller vs 4-controller(customers can of course run only 2 controllers on the F400). Any new low end box would also be 2-controller, since it'd be much cheaper obviously. The main downside to the F-class in my opinion is the number of PCI-X (not even PCIe) slots available for expansion, there isn't much. I'm less interested in driving tons of throughput as much as I am using more direct attach, which applies pretty much just as much to the F400 as it does to the F200. Of course any two-node 3PAR system can't benefit from Persistent Cache which really is a nice feature to have available.
The only systems that have more than one ASIC per controller is the V class. Everything else in their history has one ASIC per controller. I suspect any VSA that may come out would be for non production use, mainly for training/testing purposes, test out things on the CLI or GUI and simulate things. But I think even that is a stretch and may be a while (years) before anything resembling something like that sees public light.
Redundancy is provided at the controller level, to a (much) lesser extent at the ASIC level on the V class. While the failure of one of the ASICs in the V class could result in the controller continuing to operate I can't help but think the number of scenarios where it fails in the right way is small enough to not make much of a difference, and the customer should not put much weight in the redundancy with the two ASICs, they are there for performance rather than availability.
3PAR also has always been anal about high availability, not allowing customers to buy single controller systems, always having to buy disks to provide redundancy across at least two drive cages.