I thought this was interesting. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation (soon to be HP) All your base are belong to us. > Subject: A blow to NetApps and also What's in a Benchmark! > > Microsoft Has No Plans to Certify Latest NetApp SnapManager > Section: 01. Top Stories > Microsoft Corp currently has no plans to certify Network Appliance > Inc's latest edition of SnapManager for Exchange, no matter how much > the NAS vendor demands it do so. > The Redmond, Washington-based software developer acknowledged that it > is "looking at customers' requirements and evaluating Exchange 2000 > and NAS support," adding however that that support currently does not > exist due to issues of data corruptibility when Exchange is deployed > on a network-attached storage device. > Zane Adam, lead product manager for Microsoft's embedded and appliance > platforms group, told ComputerWire categorically that "there is no > engineering effort between NetApp and Microsoft to certify SnapManager > for Microsoft Exchange 2000." And lest there be any confusion, he > added that Microsoft's generic statement, to be found on its > KnowledgeBase, that it does not support NAS filers for Exchange 2000, > goes for any NAS filers, including the bevy of products launched over > the last year that are actually based on Microsoft's own Windows > Powered version of W2K. > In other words, he insisted, this is not Microsoft trying to choke off > other NAS OSes besides its own. The issue is strictly one of a risk of > corruption of Exchange data when the server is deployed on a NAS box, > overcoming which would require changes in the Exchange code, followed > by additional testing, before certification would be possible. And > Microsoft currently has no plans, either to make those changes to the > code or to carry out the subsequent testing. > Adam also refuted any reduction in Microsoft's support for the CIFS > protocol, which of course it created in the first place, then passed > to the IETF to become accepted as a standard. NetApp has been > suggesting of late that Microsoft is gradually pulling back from its > support of the networking protocol (CI No 4,237), arguing that this is > at the bottom of its lack of support for NAS on Exchange. > "We don't know why they're saying that," commented Adam, adding that, > in any case, the lack of support is not on account of NAS filers' use > of CIFS. "It's simply that Exchange assumes all storage is local, so > we support direct-attached (DAS) and storage area networks (SAN)," he > went on. > Of course, Sunnyvale, California-based NetApp would argue that the > latest iteration of SnapManager, launched with muscular remarks > earlier this month about demanding Microsoft certification (CI No > 4,247), overcomes that problem. It does so by using a workaround that > enables it to handle block-level data, which means the Exchange server > thinks it's talking to a piece of DAS (CI No 4,195). That's as may be, > but Adam insisted he was not aware of any initiative in Redmond to > certify the workaround. > This response from Microsoft puts a question mark over the viability > of the strategy, announced by NetApp, earlier this year, to home in on > three specific, widely used enterprise applications, namely Exchange, > Lotus Notes/Domino and Oracle databases (CI No 4,132). Such a move was > clearly determined, at least in part, by increased competition in the > NAS market, with a bunch of server vendors launching their own > offerings in an effort to snatch back some of the market NetApp in > particular had been taking from their own DAS or SAN offerings in > 1999/2000. > Most of these server players (e.g. Compaq Computer Corp, Dell Computer > Corp and IBM Corp) base their NAS boxes on Windows Powered, Adam > pointed out, adding that this increase in competition has certainly > brought NAS prices down by at least two cents per megabyte. > What could be more natural then, than that NetApp should seek to > enhance its offering into the Exchange, Notes and Oracle user bases to > fight off these new competitors? However, if Microsoft is refusing to > take support calls on Exchange Server 5.5 or 2000 when it is deployed > on NAS boxes, that entire strategy is called into question. > The issue does not arise with the other applications, as both Oracle > and IBM support NAS boxes on their packages. For Exchange, however, it > would appear that NetApp is going to have to continue to rely on its > service agreement with IBM Global Services for support, at least for > the time being. > HDS at Odds With Analyst Over Storage Benchmark > Section: 02. Today's News > Analyst the Robert Frances Group (RFG) is adamant that Hitachi Data > Systems is overstating the ability of its Lightning storage array - > despite the vendor's insistence that it has done no such thing. > At issue is the data throughput of HDS' Lightning 9900 storage array, > which is resold and re-badged by Hewlett Packard Co and Sun > Microsystems Inc. Westport, Connecticut-based RFG has issued a report > which says the usable data throughput of the array is just 1.6MB per > second, half the 3.2MB per second which HDS insists its hardware can > deliver. > Both sides stood by their claims this week when contacted by > ComputerWire. At the heart of the dispute is the data throughput of > the four cache-memory boards fitted to a fully-loaded Lightning 9900. > RFG points out that these are the gating factor. Each board is capable > of up to 500MB per second throughput, and in total they provide 2GB > per second total throughput. Overheads will reduce that figure by > 100MBytes per second, reducing the total number to 1.6GB per second. > HDS however says the boards can handle 800MBance taken by HDS earlier > this year when he was researching the report. "They did some > combination of the Mexican Hat Dance, the French Waltz and the > Argentinian Tango. For the cache throughput I was told 400, 500, 600, > 800MBs per second, 1.2, 1.4 and even 1.6GB/sec. So we were into "let's > pick a number here" territory," he said. > "Let's be charitable and call it 600MB per second - which puts HDS in > the range of IBM. All the vendors are close in performance terms. The > benchmarks can be manipulated, and the thing you can really trust is > what you see in your own shop," Broderick said. > > > Terry Woodjetts > Compaq UK Enterprise Storage Product Manager > * Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * Tel: + 44(0)118 920 1314 > * + 44(0)7785 336675 (Mobile / Cellular) > * Fax: + 44(0)118 920 3539 > D I S C L A I M E R > The information contained in this communication is intended solely for > use by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Use of this > communication by others is prohibited. Compaq Computer is neither > liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information > contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt nor > for any special, incidental or consequential damages of any nature > whatsoever resulting from receipt or use of this communication. > > > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
