While I know the Compaq stuff is some of the best out there, I'd be very interested to see if the performance issues you're seeing aren't more directly related to poor drive/array/LUN partitioning rather than issues with specific architecture - after all, once it leaves the HBA, FC is FC.
------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Exchange (Swynk) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: the IBM Shark > > > We have a Shark here and found that it is CRAP when it comes to I/O > intensive Win32 applications. Someone here got the bright > idea to have > an enterprise-wide SAN solution, instead of looking at it from the > perspective of how each platform actually works .... the Shark works > great for legacy (i.e. IBM) systems, and works marginally well for NT > file servers, but try sticking a large SQL database on there and watch > what happens. Of all the SANs out there (at least 18 months ago when > ours was purchased), the Shark was one of the most expensive, > and one of > the slowest. It may not be the same with newer Sharks, but ours is a > slow-as-hell drive technology that choked whenever we tested SQL > databases and Exchange 5.5 on it. > > We have found that Compaq's SAN solution works well for our > environment > -- it's almost half the price of comparable storage on the Shark, and > much much faster. Since we're an all-Compaq shop for our > Win32 systems, > that's what we're moving to now. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Posted At: Friday, December 06, 2002 10:29 AM > > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) > > Conversation: the IBM Shark > > Subject: OT: the IBM Shark > > > > > > Is anyone here happen to be running a IBM shark or possibly a > > Hitachi 9900 > > series SAN? We are looking at both of these and I have heard > > rumors that > > the shark has a performance boundary of 3.36 TB. Just curious. > > > > e- > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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] > _________________________________________________________________ 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]
