Re: Customers are testing VVol water .. ready to go big
6717 posts • joined 31 May 2010
"Why aren't VVOLs everywhere"?
Because the very few arrays that support VVOLs are stupidly expensive and deliver an ass-tier value/$. When VVOLs start showing up in storage systems people actually want to buy, you'll see increased usage. Imagine that.
Of course, by the time the crusty old dinosaurs remove their over-inflated heads from their asses and figure that one out, hyperconvergence will be an unstoppable juggernaut and VVOLs will be nothing more than a quaint means of making legacy storage less horrible for those unfortunate enough to be stuck having to cling to the past. (And don't get me started on "it only works with the stupid expensive licensing tier" bit.)
Companies don't make money resizing LUNs. They make money doing stuff with their workloads. VVOLs was a nice step, but too little, too late, too expensive.
Yes, yes, I realize that there is a whole category of large enterprises that give negative fucks about the price of anything. What should be noted, however, is that they are shoving their piles of burning cash at Amazon, not at keeping on premises stuff going. If you're going to pay too much for IT, why not get someone to take care of most of it for you while you're at it?
That leaves VVOLs and legacy storage vendors where, exactly? All clamoring for the same, shrinking piece of pie? That increasingly mythical large enterprise that just doesn't care how much anything costs, they'll splash the cash because you take them out for hookers and beer?
Have fun with that, legacy storage vendors. Write me a post card from the other side of the grave.
I read the article. I also read the bit where apparently we're supposed to 'train up the proles' because 'there's a perpetual skills shortage in tech'. Both ideas are bullshit.
First, there is no skill shortage in tech. There's just a lack of companies willing to actually pay a living wage. They whine and cry and carry on about how expensive nerds are and could they please, please, please import some cheap labour.
Secondly, if you train up the proles to fill this non-existent skills shortage what you're going to do is create massive downwards wage pressure on a sector that already isn't paying well enough. It sucks that everyone else has shit or no jobs, but flooding them all into tech is just going to destroy the economic benefits of tech, it isn't going to help the downtrodden at all.
This creates another problem: training people to do tech is expensive and time consuming. It has a cost. If you drive the wages for tech workers into the ground then who is going to want to spend their own money on this?
That means that people choosing tech as a career because it is what they love (and hence are willing to pay for the education themselves) basically evaporate. In relatively short order you can only get bodies into the now-prole-class-wages tech sector by spending muchos government wonga on training up people from other failed sectors, and that stops delivering a return on investment fairly quickly.
Look, I am not remotely against spending money training the proles up so that they can (hopefully) get better jobs. I just don't believe tech is the sector to target. Wage pressures in tech are already downwards and both political and economic forces are aligned to increase that downward pressure. Worse, tech doesn't tend to benefit the actual economy all that much, unless you happen to be the US of A.
No, if you want to train up the proles and jumpstart the economy Look for post-tech sectors. Specifically I am thinking here nanotechnology, genetics, applied biology and robotics. These fields need massive amounts of technicians and there are never enough available.
What's more, the UK, Canada or any non-US location has a very real shot at creating centers of excellence. If we start now, we could end up with a trained workforce large enough and with an early enough head start on what promise to be the next economic sectors driving the global economy that the Americans don't get to sit on the top of the mountain.
Tech is dead. We are well down the path towards industrializing code development, automating systems administration and otherwise reducing the need for bodies, even as we are churning more of them out of educational facilities than are needed. Don't doom the proles to spend the rest of their careers in another mediocre, failed/failing sector. Give them a real chance by pointing them in the direction of the next big thing.
There's just a shortage of companies willing to pay a living wage.
"Honestly, I prefer...system Center Orchestrator or UCS Director"
That's just messed up.
Edit: assuming that it's a single global namespace, then I want. If it is another Teamdrive with an overly complicated management and assignation structure for shared storage, no thanks. (We already have Teamdrive for that.) But "Datacore for file storage" with a CIFS sharing mechanism no more complicated than a Synology - which is sort of what I read this as - THAT I most definitely want.
No, I used humour on the internet. I realize that for some, humour is a foreign concept, but do try to keep up.
I have no beef with NetApp. In truth, I it would be hard to care less what happens to them one way or another. Their fate is to me no more or less interesting than the fluid dynamics of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, or examining the structural evolution of microbial mats as they grow in my fishtank.
NetApp is an ephemeral concept. It is disconnected from me and my life. The study of NetApp and those who work there is scientifically interesting, but not remotely relevant to me in any way. NetApp is nothing more than points of data to be analysed.
While I find it amusing enough to joke about - much in the same way I like to make jokes about the more interesting fluid dynamic discoveries of the Great Red Spot - NetApp is really just one more company to analyze. One more set of people to observe. One more exercise in social interaction, group dynamics and economic theory.
As for being downvoted, go right ahead! Currently I am at "upvoted 21936 times and downvoted 4159 times". Feel free to add more data points to that analysis in whichever fashion moves you. The more data, the better.
Always, the more data, the better.
Dimitris is a teddy bear. I hope he'll let me buy him a few beers at the next conference.
Netapp is perfect! Nothing about their products or strategies needs to change! They are well positioned to return to growth and continue from there to dominance in the tech sector! I know because anyone who questions CDOT will get downvoted into oblivion and then NetApp employees will make fun of them on the Internets! This means it clearly is true!
And don't, under any circumstances ever ask NetApp to back up their claims. Don't under any circumstances suggest that they might use marketing to stretch the truth, carefully omit information or simply choose not to address uncomfortable topics. Otherwise, when the write mean things about you it might be one whole blog.
That'll totally reverse Netapp's fortunes. You just watch.
WAFL. WAFL everywhere. WAFL is the answer to everything.
Except where Solidfire is the answer, of course. (Shhhhhhhhh, don't point that out!)
Rubrik has 2D Chris Wahl. 2D Chris Whal is the hero storage needs right now, but not the one it deserves.
Except that isn't the case. Apple isn't an island and this idea that corporations exist independently of the societies in which they operate is absurd.
If Apple (the corporation) or Apple (the individuals who make up the corporation) can be compelled by any legal system - or by a man in mask with a $5 wrench - to create a tool/custom firmware/what-have-you that can "hack" a phone, that phone is not secure. Anything else is handwaving away responsibility and hiding behind legal tricks instead of producing a secure device.
I'm sorry, but Apple is beholden to the laws of the United States of America and - to a lesser extent - those other nations in which it operates. If a legal means exists to force them to hack the phone then the only difference from there being a big red button that says "hack me" is the number of malicious actors that can exploit that flaw. (Namely governments and those who know which people to hit with a wrench.)
If such a flaw exists, we deserve to know this. It should be made very clear and very public. Knowing exactly which classes of malicious actors can impinge our civil liberties and violate our privacy is part of being informed about the devices we purchase. Given that everything these days is "licensed" and not "purchased", I'd go so far as to say it is part of informed consent for participating in a contract with a service provider.
This judge looks set to provide us, the consumer, with critical information. I sincerely hope Apple are unable to hide behind legal trickery and handwave away responsibility for adequately securing their devices.
Apple has said it shouldn't be done. I see nowhere they said it couldn't be done. Apple have said that there are no conventional/official means available to hack the phone. That does not mean that the method suggested by the FBI - create a compromised firmware and upload it to the device, which can apparently be done without needing to enter the PIN - cannot be used. It is simply that this is unconventional and not an official method of recovering the data.
Apple would indeed have to be able to demonstrate why the FBI is wrong here. That's what courts are for; to allow experts to present evidence and to make decisions based on that evidence. Let's ponder some scenarios.
If Apple had stated under oath that there is no way they know about to hack the phone and it is later proven they did know of a way, they go to jail.
If Apple had stated under oath that there is no way they know about to hack the phone and someone comes up with a way, but it requires Apple's assistance, they don't go to jail, but they are compelled to help law enforcement do their jobs.
If Apple had stated under oath that there is no way they know about to hack the phone and nobody can show how the phone might be hacked, then there is no reason they go to jail. They told the truth and there is no evidence to show they are lying.
Why is that any different than you getting on the stand and saying "no, your honour, I was not at the pub that night between 11pm and 3am"?
If you claim this and you're proven to be lying (say by video evidence) you go to jail.
If you claim this and nobody can prove that you were there nothing happens.
Apple is not required to prove their innocence. They are asked to cooperate in an investigation. A means by which they can do so has been suggested. If there is some reason they cannot comply with that means they have to demonstrate why that is.
What is wrong that? How is that morally or legally wrong?
Then we have a problem, as the phone is vulnerable to attack by the bad guys. The devices need to have a means to be made immune to this attack vector. It's as simple as that.
If the phone can have a compromised firmware uploaded without the phone owner's permission it is flawed. At which point, we should all know this so that we can bin the units and seek adequately protected units from someone else.
If the phone is not susceptible to any attacks that Apple's own experts are aware of, then they get to take the stand and claim under oath "they know of no means to meet the judge's order" and we all get to cheer in the streets.
Either they can do what the judge wants and thus the phone is flawed, or they can't and the phone lives up to the hype.
If the phones are designed properly then Apple should not be able to pwn one of their phones to comply with this sort of request. Quite frankly, that is the only adequate protection we will ever have. Hiding behind a technicality of the law will never be good enough.
The law still places some emphasis on an individual's word. You get relevant experts on the phone to come in and say under oath that they know of no means to attack the phone. If the judge can find noone who knows how to pwn it then the device is presumed invulnerable for the purposes of that case and off they go.
If the experts refuse to answer whether or not you can pwn the phone, of the experts are caught lying under oath, they are in Deep Shit. They'll get thrown in the clink until they are no longer in contempt of court.
This isn't about proving a negative. It relies on the assumption that people under oath tell the truth, especially when there are more than one of them. Without that assumption our entire legal system falls apart.
"A special OS firmware build that disables the "slow-down after x tries" is effectively a backdoor into the device because it makes it possible for someone to get in (with a 'brute force' key). So now the government has this special build Apple gave it that will make it possible to get into any iPhone 5c - with or without warrant."
Yes. If it works, if Apple can deliver then we know the iPhone 5c is vulnerable and never lived up to the claims that it would protect your privacy in the first place.
Truth is more important than a comforting lie. Even when that truth is the bitter realization that the trust you placed in a company's advertising was misplaced.
If the company can compromise the phone, then the phone is flawed, period.
We need to know which devices are secure, not hide behind some technicality of law to protect us. The bad guys don't honour the law.
Ops wouldn't be needed if devs knew how to write proper code.
"Operations staff, who have spent their careers learning how IT systems work...can shorten the length of time it takes for developers to understand the infrastructure by orders of magnitude."
"Operations staff have a lot to contribute to DevOps, in the short- and long-term. They just need to see it."
You have done an excellent job in this piece of explaining why operations teams are required in the short term for DevOps. Specifically: knowledge transfer. You have also discussed at great legnth how it benefits the business to convince the operations teams to participate in this knowledge transfer willingly.
You did not even remotely touch on the role of operations in the long term. What sort of positions they might fill once the knowledge transfer is completed nor what value the business will see in continuing their employment past that point.
This entire article has been about the importance of convincing ops not to fear for their jobs when DevOps begins implementation, but I must say that I finished it feeling only more convinced that once the knowledge trasnfer is complete, operations will be kicked to the curb.
Can you please help me understand how DevOps is anything other than a protracted method for handing everything over to developers?
Furthermore, given that developers are functionally allergic to testing, QA, UAT or any form of resiliancy, redundancy or stability, why should I, as a business owner, want to undertake a DevOps transition that seems to be aimed at eliminating the positions of the people who actually keep things running?
Bonus question: how many DevOps transitions are actually "successful"? How many are just some manager throwing a copy of The Pheonix Project into the dev pen and then waiting until they can start firing ops teams?
What is the benefit to me, as an operations guy for taking the risk of working to make DevOps succeed?
What is the benefit to me, as a business owner for taking the risk of trying DevOps at all?
"truism that women usually have to work twice as hard to be seen as even half as good is still alive and well"
Would that this weren't the case. I honestly don't believe that the majority of men (at least in tech) think women are less competent. That said, there is a significant minority that harbour this believe - spoken or not - and those individuals seem to be pretty cognate with the cohort attracted to power.
For my money, the five best techies I've ever met consist of three women, one man and one individual whose gender identity is still ambiguous after several years.
Let's hope we can collectively overcome this bit of gender tribalism. We've better things to spend cycles on.
Thanks for that.
Apologies, but who isn't Canadian and is polite? I has a confused.
Significance != value
We just found a million, billion suns. A million, billion. One quadrillion. 1 x 10^15.
1,000,000,000,000,000 suns that were just casually blocked behind the core of the Milky Way; a fraction of the observable sky.
We are insignificant. We are small. And we are all star stuff.
I guess since you don't speak English and you are writing for a living, you should soon be broke. I can't take this article seriously when I read that. Isn't "sometime" a real word? I am not a native English speaker so I could be wrong.
You're wrong. Also more than a little constrained of thought. English is spoken by over half a billion people with almost 340 million confirmed native speakers around the world. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of dialects. The language has evolved and is evolving in multiple different directions simultaneously in different parts of the world.
"Somewhen" is a perfectly legitimate adverb. One that was in popular usage predominantly in the 19th century, but which persisted in isolated pockets (especially Western Canada, where I am from) until modern times. It has recently seen something of a modern revival, thanks to the internet and the admixture of dialects and cultures it has enabled.
The usage of "somewhen" has evolved since the 19th century. In the 19th century "somewhen" would be used very much interchangeably with how most cultures use "sometime" today. In Western Canada (and a couple other places, such as New Zeland) where "somewhen" has persisted, its usage has actually become different from "sometime".
To wit: "sometime" is typically used when there is a general idea of when "sometime" might be. E.g. "Sometime before supper". The exact details of the time are a little fuzzy, but it is possible to give reasonably actionable timeframes if pressed.
"Somewhen" is used when the target time is more fuzzy. For example: "I'll get around to finishing painting that wall somewhen; I just don't know when I can get away long enough to do so."
So there you go, you have learned something. And I, for one, am glad to use words you don't know.
It's bleedingly obvious if you live and breathe networking all day, every day. But when I started asking around, I was shocked how few people knew most of this existed, despite this functionality now being offered by many ISPs, even out in the sticks.
At least it's something. The first small admission that European citizens might have rights. Canada hasn't even managed to negotiate that much for its citizens! Not that I expect a civil-liberties hating douchecanoe like Trudeau to ever even try. He's too busy signing away Canada's future with the TPP and cracking down on its citizens with Bill C-51.
Whomever wins, we lose.
It really depends on what you want it for. If you just want it as a CIFS/SMB target, then deduplication will probably work fine. I say probably because I have not actually tried it on these units and so I have no idea if pinning the CPU for hours on end actually fits within their thermal envelope. I'd kinda hope it does, but who knows?
I have a WD Sentinel running Storage Server 2012 R2 that I hacked to enable deduplication. I actually use it for backup my media server (ironically stored on an ioSafe ARM unit) in case Cryptolocker pays me a visit. I'm pleasantly surprised at how well it manages to reduce total storage size.
But if you want to - as I do - jettison the "BDR" role of the ioSafe x86 units and start using them for bigger and better things? Sadly, there Microsoft's rather awful post-process deduplication will not do well for you at all. I say this from bitter - bitter - experience.
*looks at his ioSafe*
If you find a blender that blends that, I'll take two.
Clearly you work in the "large enterprise enterprise where money is no object" world. In the real world, where the majority of the world's businesses are, we don't have access to unlimited bandwidth. In short, we can't or at least can't afford to replicate that data in real time. The data needs to get buffered somewhere before being spooled out to the DR site.
From the article:
In its designed-for role, I find the BDR 515 quite interesting. To my knowledge, this makes the ioSafe BDR515 the only unit available that solves a very real backup vulnerability gap experienced by small and medium businesses that backup their data offsite over the internet.
Many SMBs back up to a local "cloud gateway" that will then slowly send that data to its offsite destination over the course of days or weeks. Until that data is copied off of the cloud gateway device it is still vulnerable to whatever local disasters might affect the local data centre. The ioSafe BDR 515 would be immune to that, ensuring that as soon as the backups are completed the data is protected. This is something I've been waiting for a long time.
Because the server is essentially *inside* a heat sink. There are two enormous fans on the back that serve to cool the heatsink. Air from outside does not actually get blown over the components of the x86 gubbins inside, just the external side of the heatsink to which they're bolted.
"My gift to industry is the genetically engineered worker, or Genejack. Specially designed for labor, the Genejack's muscles and nerves are ideal for his task. And the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that he can desire nothing except to perform his duties. Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain"
--Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang, "Essays on Mind and Matter"
Wrong. Plenty of MS software is only available through enterprise agreements.
Without EA, now what? We can only get that software through Azure subscription services? We can't buy it at all because we're too small too mater?
Both. Either. Microsoft fucks the SMB every which way it can.
300 people are needed for acceptable genetic diversity. Damned near everything else can be done by robots. Most of your colonists would end up biologists/medics or robotics engineers. The rest would be developers. You'd be surprised what you can do with robots when you have the budget. Even with today's technology. We really only use people for anything anymore because they're cheaper, or they have expertise in pattern recognition that is still too difficult to code and execute on silicon.
Basing a company's future on the movement of that company's share price and why execs are leaving are perfectly valid diagnostic indicators for a company's health.
Comparing a company's share price to the share prices of other companies is not.
I care what Wikibon thinks. I can point you to thousands of sysadmins and CIOs from companies ranging from 20 man to 2000 man who care what Wikibon thinks. Most of those folks care a lot more what Wikibon thinks than Gartner, Forrester, 451 or IDC.
If you want "pay to play", let's have a talk about the "tier 1" analysts. Indeed, given that I work with so many companies and have seen this from all angles, I would love to have a very public, very open, very transparent discussion about the state of marketing and analysis in tech. As a strong believer in the importance of independence, actual testing, proper research and full disclosure, I'll gladly use every single one of my pulpits to engage with that discussion.
So please, let's talk! Especially if you can get the folks at NetApp to reveal whom they have paid, how much, and for what. From marketing to analysis, whitepapers to "pay to play" let's get it all out in the open, shall we?
Wikibon absolutely get paid to do analysis. But I am more than willing to believe they are objective and relatively independent than Gartner and their ilk. Do you have any idea how hard it is to maintain some semblance of independence when analysis is your job? Let alone rake in millions upon millions?
So, hey, if your folks at NetApp are willing to open their kimono, I am more than willing to bang the drum about how the sausage is made.
What say you...are you game to put up?
Uh...you just listed share prices without remotely looking at growth, number of shares, market capitalization or a squillion other things. Share prices mean less than comparing apples and sidewalks to the inky void of space. The prices need rather a lot of additional context to tell you anything at all about the companies.
I think you just rendered every post you've made in this thread a joke, as written by someone who doesn't understand what the nether fnord they're on about, mate.
Hi, AC. Let me respond to your epistles point by each.
1 a) "Anecdotal evidence is interesting, especially when colored with confirmation bias. I assume you've spent your days talking to every single storage admin that's ever migrated to cDOT?"
No, I haven't talked to every single storage admin that's ever migrated to cDOT. I have talked to all those I could find and who were willing to talk to me. Just like I talk to sysadmins about their experiences with any and every bit of infrastructure (especially storage) or software they are willing to share experiences on. The more I learn about pain points the more informed my questions can be when I get the chance to talk to vendors. That's, you know, my job.
Regarding confirmation bias: I don't have any on this topic. Yes, I think NetApp is probably doomed, but the reasons for that are more related to issues around the support experience, partner/channel difficulties, sales targets, marketing and the utter incomprehension on NetApp's behalf of community management.
The cDOT thing is actually fairly incidental in my calculations. Despite that, the issue has been raised so many times, by so many sysadmins that when I saw what appeared to be a NetApp employee adding info to an article I took the opportunity to ask questions in the comments forum instead of using my full blown article pulpit.
The comments section receives less than 1% of the readers of a main article. NetApp has declined to assign me a PR flak to whom I can ask questions when I have them. This seemed a perfectly valid way to ask questions in a manner that would be relatively low impact to NetApp itself.
1b) "Where is your empirical evidence and precise examples of where dealing with cDOT/ONTAP is so much worse than any other vendor, so much so that it's worth the *extra* downtime to do so? Because all I see here is unfounded opinion."
Well, were I going to take the time to ask my sources to get official permission to discuss this, be named, and document their issues in full I would damned well expect to get paid for the effort. This means writing up a full article. Given the tales told around the boozer about this that article would be damning. Bordering on assassination. I have no interest in assassinating NetApp. At least not over the cDOT thing.
As to whether or not it is "worth the [extra] downtime" to migrate away from NetApp to another solution, different people have expressed different opinions on the topic. For some, they have heard of so many things going wrong during cDOT migrations that they flat out do not trust NetApp's claims of seamless migration and wouldn't try it, no matter what the spokesdroids say. For those customers the question then does NOT revolve around downtime (or lack thereof) but instead around the ROI and TCO of the different offerings.
Others are using solutions such as Datacore or Falconstore to migrate workloads from NetApp to other solutions live and without interruption. Some competing storage vendors have other tools which make migrations easier. Migrating workloads off of one storage vendor's tin and over to another its own industry.
Others might be willing to trust in NetApp's cDOT migration capabilities but view the cost of staying with NetApp as being higher than a competitor + the outage/effort required to migrate. And yes, there are those who have - successfully and unsuccessfully - felt that sticking with NetApp and doing the migration is the best path.
I am not claiming - nor have I claimed - that any of these paths is "correct". I asked questions and I was hoping for a reasoned response that would allow me to gather more data on the topic.
1c) "I'm fairly certain that there are legal avenues that can be taken if "CFT craters" on you. Luckily, CFT has rollback methodology built in, backed by decades of proven SnapShot technology."
What are those avenues? What is covered? Under what circumstances? Vague promises are irrelevant here. As for "has rollback technology"...great? I mean, that's some comfort, but the risks involved are so high that the existence of one possible technological remedy is just not remotely relevant compared to the importance of the financial and legal remedies that are available. As you seem to be involved in teh technology industry, I am hoping you are more than passingly familiar with risk management.
1 d) "I agree - Forklift upgrades are retro, which is precisely why customers are moving to cDOT."
I can see this as an easy enough marketing message. I am trying to match the corporate bravado with actual reports from systems administrators. To date, it would seem that those who trust in this particular bit of "messaging" are vastly outnumbered by those who do not.
Seem is the operative word here. I have stated what I see on the ground. I welcome rebuttal with facts and numbers that can be verified.
2a) "Wait. So first it was "NetApp was slow to the flash market" and now it's "congrats you have an all-flash solution. Big deal." Which is it? And I'm sure you realize that AFF is *not* classic FAS, right?"
First off, I don't recall saying NetApp was late to the flash party. It was, but that isn't something I consider relevant to today's systems administrators. Today, hybrid flash and all flash are common. No big deal. The question isn't "can you do it" - Synology can do it! - but "does your solution suck less than others and/or cost less than others?".
AFF may not be classic FAS, but they are really not so very far apart. While I have not personally had the opportunity to run AFF through the wringer, others whom I trust to be very good at testing these things found it to be decent on performance but less than middling on value. As always, more data to better refine analysis is better.
2b) "The data is out there and more is coming."
Hyperlinks would be appreciated. What I've seen so far does not convince me that NetApp is the be-all and end-all of storage by a long shot.
2c - "You complained about no proof in 2b, then shrug off the proof in 2c. This makes little sense."
Um, no. I acknowledged that the data provided was an important data point, but do not find that it is remotely adequate enough to call it for NetApp. Performance, looks great for one specific benchmark. NetApp should be proud, but that is really only one data point amongst the many needed. It also does not address TCO or ROI, nor the intersection of those two with performance.
Proper analysis considered multiple use cases, multiple (and mixed) workloads, ROI, TCO, performance, support, migration, reliability, insurance coverage, ecosystem, future proofing and migration friction/lock-in.
"I will say that your entire post would have been perfect if summed up in your last two paragraphs."
I am sure you would, as your pro-NetApp bias is pretty blatant. Which, to my mind, is aught but a stronger incentive to ask more - and more probing - questions.
"There *does* need to be industry-wide standards and testing done by independent groups. It needs to be impartial. The FUD slinging has to stop, and honestly, it starts with the people with the largest mouthpieces, like The Register."
See 1 a). I'm doing my job. What's yours, exactly?
And while you're at it, please have the bravery to use your real name. If you want to go after me, The Register and/or anyone else, don't hide behind the coward's veil.
Hi D, a few questions, as your responses don't jive with administrators I've talked to.
1 a) Everyone I've talked to has said CDOT Migrations are a miserable bitch and usually edge towards "unmitigated disaster". Can you explain why this is? What are Netapp admins in the feild doing wrong? Why are their reports different from your own?
1 b) GTFOing NetApp is a one-time pain, followed by not having to deal with that shit again.
1 c) What are the risks with your CFT? DO you offer guarantees in the form of gigantic piles of cash if the CFT migration blows up and craters a company for hours/days/forever? How much cash, exactly?
1 d) I present to you: Pure Storage, amongst many, many others. Forklift upgrades are retro.
2 a) Congratulations: you made an array go faster by putting flash in it. Do you want a lollipop? How does it compare to competitor hybrid or AFA arrays on a $/GB/IOPS or $/GB/Latency basis? In case you missed it, that's the bit that matters. Your ability to compete with yourself is not relevant.
2 b) This is an interesting claim, as what I hear is that it is NetApp who can't achieve consistency of storage response for low-latency (or high throughput!) operations. I - and everyone else - would love to see these bake-off numbers, including details of the workload and the competitors against which it was measured, whether or not this was in a mixed workload environment, and more. He says/She says. Either could be right here.
2 c) This is a start, but it is also just one benchmark. See above.
Now, D, I am emphatically NOT saying that Netapp is wrong and Floyer is right. I am entirely willing to entertain that either side of this is wholly or partially right. What I am saying is that Floyer's take is backed by a large amount of anecdotal evidence that seems to reflect popular opinion on the subject.
I do not thing "blogs at dawn" is the answer. It's time for some serious engagement with independent testing groups. There are many. Pick a few and let's put this to bed so we can all focus on why NetApp doesn't have a proper hyperconverged solution. :) (No, EVO:Anything doesn't count. Look at your sales figures, you know it to be true.)
"Just wait till we get european islamic communists"
We get it. You like systemd. Buy why should it be mandatory - and in effect, it is - instead of optional? The whole point of the Unix philosophy was "do one thing and do it well", so that individual components you don't like can be swapped out. Systemd - and the massively REL-influenced projects like Gnome that that have decided to depend on it - remove choice.
Do you also think Microsoft was correct in telling it's users to go fuck themselves by removing the Start Menu, adding in Start Button, and then creating Windows 10 which creates a horror in place of a working start menu, doesn't let you fully turn off spying and removes your ability to control your updates? If so, why would anyone use Linux instead of Microsoft if both are to be removers of choice? If you don't agree with Microsoft's approach, why do you disagree with them and not with moves like systemd?
The removal of choice from administrators or end users is never a good thing. Nor is committing to a path that will get you to that "choiceless" future a piece at a time.
Good luck, Luke! Keep kicking ass. :)
Anti-lock brakes are regulated and must meet certain guidelines on functionality, safety, interface and so forth. They are provided as part of your car in a market that is rich with competitors. They do not prevent you from using your vehicle. They do not report you for driving "improperly", or force you to buy a new car. You do not have to pay a monthly subscription to keep them working.
Microsoft inspecting everything you do on your computer and beaming that information back to the mothership, complete with kill switch is a completely different scenario. Microsoft are functionally a monopoly. They behave like a monopolist and have proven repeatedly they cannot be trusted. They are not regulated by anyone. They answer to no one, excepting their massively corrupt and equally untrustworthy government.
Can you guarantee me that this kill switch won't be used on me if I do something perfectly legal in my jurisdiction but which the US has a problem with? How about if I am a political dissident? What if I am a journalist working with the next Snowden?
Can you guarantee that Microsoft won't use this kill switch on me if I use an authentication bypass on my operating system, or on any of my applications? In my country these aren't illegal, as long as I do posses a license. Bypassing the DRM in order to make it easier to virtualize/clone/backup/whatever is perfectly fine here.
What about if it accidentally picks up something as "malware", but isn't? What if I am journalist or grey hat hacker investigating a bot net?
Who gets to decide when Microsoft can kill my computer? How, exactly, are we assured that this won't be abused, by Microsoft or by a government? How do non-Americans have any say in how that regulatory and/or oversight process occurs? Once that capability is in place, what prevents any government - even not the US - from demanding and requiring access? You KNOW that China, the US, the UK and Australia will be in there instantly. Probably already are, as the EULA says MS has the right to do this, so the code is probably there, waiting to be used.
In short: Anti-lock brakes are a feature on a vehicle that is very specifically narrow in scope and in impact. They were and are rigorously tested and their use is regulated.
Oh, and my car DOES have a button on it that turns my anti-lock brakes and my traction control off (they are essentially one and the same system). The manufacturer put it in because they are aware that there are instances (such as when you are stuck in the snow and need out) that the ability to turn that feature off is very useful.
Another big difference is that when I push the button to turn the ABS/TC off, I believe it does, in fact, turn off. I don't believe for a second that turning off Windows 10 spyware actually turns it off (the damned thing still calls home) and I don't believe for a second that if they put in a "don't kill my PC" switch that they would honour it.
Microsoft cannot be trusted.
"People don;t object to having their car inspected for roadworthiness at regular intervals: perhaps the same approach should apply to Internet-connected devices?"
My car is inspected by any of thousands of licensed mechanics in my city all of whom must meet regulatory criteria that is regularly reviewed by my government and subject to the input of industry experts. There is a vibrant industry of competition in the provisioning of the vehicles, the maintenance of these vehicles and the inspection thereof.
My car is not subject to the whims of a monopolist who has proven repeatedly that they absolutely cannot be trusted. Microsoft is such a monopolist and they absolutely have proven themselves untrustworthy.
There is no universe in which I will hand over control of my desktop to Microsoft. Not to them, and sure as all hell not to their government.
Microsoft cannot be trusted.
"how is it shooting themselves in the foot"
Microsoft have raised a possible future tactic that relies entirely on the public trusting Microsoft, and by extension all the governments to which they must answer.
None of those entities are trustworthy. Not Microsoft, not the governments. The fact that Microsoft does not understand this - does not seem to be capable of comprehending the importance of trust - is the footbullet.
Microsoft just thunder around like a monopoly: in their minds there is no need for trust because noone has a choice but to use them. I hope they are proven wrong and driven out of business. With extreme prejudice.
"The difference being that even Pastafarians don't ACTUALLY believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. With any other religion you can be pretty sure that the true believers really are true believers."
So those priests raping little boys really believed in the God of the bible? Those protestants lynching blacks and building walls against latinos take "do unto others" truly to heart?
Bullshit. Bull fucking shit.
My belief in Jibbers Crabst is more real and profound than the majority of mainstream religious believers' belief in their deity and I dare you to prove, using evidence otherwise.
--A born again Crabstian.
Don't see why its a good thing that he should have to wear it. Who is this police officer to tell him how his religion works? If you respect the fucked up quackery of one religion you should respect the fucked up quackery of all religions.
The sad thing is, that so many IT shops these days are so hidebound with processes, reviews, buy-in, "quality" (ha!), and all the other buzz-word stages that get between a dam' good idea and making it happen that it's often more rewarding, much less effort and a lot of fun to move the fan closer to the brown stuff - and instead of avoiding problems, let them happen and then be a superhero. After all, who doesn't like a good panic every now and again?
This isn't my experience. In my experience everything goes all to shit, I work my ass off to pull the nose up before it all plows into the ground and there is no "superhero" anything involved. No matter whose fault it is, I get shit on for letting it happen because I'm the one who knew how to fix it, so I was the most visible person involved.
I don't believe IT staffs want to "be a superhero" to the business. Every single one I've ever met would rather not be noticed at all by the business. They just want to do their thing, collect a steady paycheque and fade into the background. They are the ghosts in the machine. They are rarely seen and never heard.
The problem with change is "who gets the blame".
If a bossunit trundles into mission control and declares that X will occur, immediately the nerds put their shields up. Will the time-frame be enough? The budget? Will there be scope for training? What about testing, QA and UAT? The answer is pretty much always "no" to all of the above, and it sure as shit isn't the manager who is going to take the flak when it all inevitably goes pear-shaped.
IT people can document their concerns, protest, raise flags and otherwise shake the tree about the problems that will inevitably happen, are happening and more. It doesn't matter. They will be ignored as alarmists until it does break, at which point they'll be sanctioned for allowing it to break.
If you work in IT you simply can't win. The game is rigged from the very start. That is why IT staffs are risk averse. That is why we all fear change. Properly scoped and funded projects run by managers who listen to the techs and understand the importance of adequate time and resources are myths. Fairy tales told to IT techs to keep them in line. "Be good", we're told, "and one day all of this could be yours".
If you work in IT the only winning move is not to play.
"What's wrong with Windows XP run as a virtual machine?"
1) Virtual machine != security.
2) I have applications that need physical access to ports or cards to drive things.