Hi this is Ben Thompson. I am the Sr. Network Engineer at the college that Liz is the Exchange Administrator. (I just also happen to dual as her husband.) We have had a Shark for several years now. The performance is great. You may want to look at NT related buffering issues when dealing with its performance, we did not have to modify anything to get it working though. We are a Compaq shop and the Compaq SANS just was not up to spec for Novell, NT/2000, and AIX/Linux. (Novell is not even supported with NT on the same unit at the same time.) Exchange has been working wonderfully, as well as Novell, Linux, DOS and 2000. (We are Exchange 5.5) We have been booting from the SANS since day one, something IBM does not like but will support. We also run our production Oracle database on the Shark. If that performance lagged for any reason I would have 3 major sites and 11 remote sites down my throat in a heartbeat. If anyone would care to look at our installation, feel free to e-mail me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I can set it up.
As to SSA blowing chunks, most people thought the same of Token-Ring. Just because something is more complicated to understand and expensive does not make the architecture "blow chunks", just cost prohibitive. Benjamin N. Thompson Senior Network Engineer/Manager CCBC - Catonsville Campus -----Original Message----- From: Exchange (Swynk) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: the IBM Shark 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]
