Sign in / up

back to article HUS dual-controller array muscles into the mid-range

Not your average dual-controller array: that's the conclusion after a canter through HDS's new HDS Unified Storage (HUS) 100 series array controller architecture. There are three different controllers in the series for block access and two for file access – NAS heads. Both types use non-commodity hardware. For block access …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    VNX Response

    HDS's response to EMC's VNX.

    0 0
  2. J.T

    Heh

    J-diskplatter-h Krisher's so heavily in bed with HDS every morning Hu asks him to pass the slippers.

    He specifically says the NAS is more scalable (debatable), which is good, because the array side is pretty close to what you could get from most array vendors size/performance wise a generation ago. Well, to be fair, this generation too. None of the vendors want their midrange to embarass their high end do they?

    He only talks performance with NetApp, using their 37xx series, ignoring the performance of their 6xxx series. He doesn't even attempt to compare performance to EMC or IBM.

    Worse, he also used the phrase: "maintain HDS's position as the industry’s storage subsystem availability leader". Let's go back to the AMS 500 series which absolutely had disruptive upgrades. Should we discuss non-stop SCSI? HDS long has an industry position that they could produce a product with legs that could run, but their industry position on maintenance has been a joke.

    Unfortunately for HDS they seem to have lost performance and now are playing catchup. The AMS 2500 was a great improvement over the AMS 500, and this is simply a bump with newer.

    But in that bump to newer they missed on one feature your midrange has to have, especially if you want to compete in deals involving VMWare and especially VDI, and that feature is: dedupe on the primary storage. HDS has pretty much lost without this feature.

    Can't wait to see some of the more vendor neutral folks get their hands on it. But hey, it's got to start somewhere, and a man who has 42 years of experience yet can only champion one vendor is the go to for HDS.

    0 0
    1. Hoosier Storage Guy
      Reply Icon
      Meh

      Re: Heh

      Not a bad article, but don't forget to compare to the new V7000 Unified offering. I believe that is also scaling out to 4 NAS heads now with a single namespace.

      I do tend to agree with the previous commenter saying HDS had been a tech spec leader but is lagging a bit. They were basically first with a SAS based mid-tier array in the AMS2000 series, but this HUS box is long overdue. I never would've expected that IBM of all storage companies would beat HDS to market with a native Unified offering.

      0 0
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Storage Engineer

    Heh,

    The NAS is more scalable. BluArc's have no problem handling billions of files in a file system, and PB of data. Compared to a VNX I'd argue the NAS heads are crazy over engineered for what they often do.

    He Sticks to the 37xx series because thats whats cost comparable with the HUS. Its a mid range modular platform, if you want to compare against the 6xxx series you talk about VSP. As for comparing performance there are no public HUS block vs. anyything so why would he compare it with IBM or EMC. The HNAS piece is the same old 3080/3090 so it is known and CAN be compared with the Netapp.

    They are the avalibility leader in this size of the market. They are the ONLY vendor in the modular space with Fully Symmetric Controllers (You can throw Active IO down ALL paths on ALL controllers without LUN trashing or fancy power path drivers). Compare this to a Netapp and get out the stopwatch when waiting for the controllers to failover. Hell even the BluArc's aren't noticable in failing over an EVS, vs a FAS failover and failback event.

    You mention VDI and needing Dedupe but VMware even says to just use Linked Clones and not use the feature. I run VDI on AMS's and using Linked Clones I have maybe 200MB per user in delta, I would run out of IOPS LONG before I'd run out of space, so the overhead for Dedupe would just make it worse. (seriously, you netapp guys need to quit going on about how Dedupe on spinning rust is the key to VDI).

    Vendor neutral folks (IE clients) have their hands on it, and the ones I talked to its working well. I will admit until the software updates later this year its largely an hardware performance upgrade but it does what its supposed to do, and it does it well. I'd argue HDS's may be out of some people's budgets if they are just looking for feature checkbox's or RAW TB on a quote, but the people who use them like them and keep buying them.

    Disclaimer, I have physically touched a Hus 110/130/150 as well as the corresponding HNAS.

    1 0
This topic is closed for new posts.