IBM to end NetApp OEM sales pact: report IBM will reportedly end its pact with NetApp, according to Bloomberg. Citing “an internal memo reviewed by Bloomberg, the newswire says IBM has simply decided to sell its own kit rather than continuing to resell the N-series network attached storage devices it sources from NetApp. IBM's storage sales aren't exactly stellar, …
Stacker was a data compression technology. NetApp dedupe is taking 4KB blocks that are duplicates and eliminating all but one of them. NetApp also has compression as well.
NetApp gives compression & deduplication as part of the base license (i.e. no additional cost).
Please explain the scam further since I work at NetApp and am not aware of it.
If you think you have security storage problems in hardware on Earth, they pale into relative insignificance with those to be encountered and vaingloriously guarded against and surrendered to in the Cloud Containment Cluster System ..... which be Virtual Terrain Team Territory with whole new worlds of novel and noble opportunies to exploit and extrapolate for friends and country against former old ignorant and arrogant ignoble foes/perverse leaderships/corrupt administrations/dodgy business empires.
It's taken IBM ages to catch up with software functionality on the NetApp. Only in June will the V7000 Unified support NFSv4, SMB etc. So it's only just now that IBM will be able to offer their own solution that can match NetApp for these two features.
In any case, IBM sales guys have been inclined to sell their own kit because of better margins.
The clincher is IBM's kit runs GPFS. Coupled with SSDs, these can give the IBM kit a distinct performance advantage (of course, depending on the application).
Storwize range catching up on NFS, SMB etc is long overdue, but until it has simple and effective SnapManager functions it remains behind.
NetApp as a replacement for Windows file servers was a great idea (and still is) but it is no longer their key USP. On the reverse side NetApp cluster mode is an effective replacement for the SVC non-disruptive data movement capabilities that was it's key USP (IMHO).
Netapp's USP for replacing WIndows servers became questionable with the release of 2008 and definitely went west with the release of 2012.
As far a Cluster mode being an effective replacement for SVC, how does that work then ? SVC supports heterogeneous storage, whereas cluster mode is pretty much a Netapp only play unless your using the Netapp V-Series / FlexArray which will require you to format the backend storage with WAFL. So extremely disruptive and you've then just added yet another bump in the wire and locked yourself in even deeper.
How similar is NetApp cluster mode to SVC ? What's the equivalent of Image mode and work with a large variety of vendors' storage?
IBM have FlashCopy Manager which is similar to SnapManager.
I can see why IBM feel they can satisfy customer requirements with their own products.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
