It's definitely related to the architecture -- SSA blows chunks. We've had several IBM guys out here to apply their "expertise" (read: blindly poke around) ..... plus, paying $30k x 2 for just a couple hundred gb is highway robbery!
Can you tell I hate IBM? :) > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:58 AM > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) > Conversation: the IBM Shark > Subject: RE: the IBM Shark > > > 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]
