FCAL is relatively irrelevant if you manage loop size, which most current implementations seem to be doing fairly well.
------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: the IBM Shark > > > "Other technologies" being what?, cause the only other one I > have seen in > the backstore of a SAN is Fiber Channel Arbitrated Loop, SSA is not > arbitrated. TO me this is a pro for multipathing across single ports. > Although I have heard that IBM plans to go to FCAL when its > throughput gets > high enough that the arbitration no longer is a issue. > > > So far it looks like it may be IBM cause of price, they are > really coming in > strong. And all our figures indicate that the performance > between IBM and > HDS is a wash. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Exchange (Swynk) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:25 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: the IBM Shark > > But token ring does blow chunks. :) > > I'm glad to hear you've had a successful implementation; ours was far > from successful and has left a bad taste in our collective mouth about > this product. I think the problem, more than anything, was that a > number of different IBM people from different teams and areas of > expertise came out here, and no one was able to provide a solution to > our problems. The mantra of "it should work, I don't know why it > doesn't" lost its humor after about the 27th time. Perhaps > we just got > a bad batch of guys, who knows. > > Cost aside, the maximum potential throughput of SSA does not > come close > to that of some other technologies ... And while "blow chunks" may not > have been the best choice of words, I will stand by my lowly > opinion of > the technology. (Take that with a grain of salt of course, for my > opinions rarely hold any value! :) > > Jon > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thompson, Elizabeth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Posted At: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:02 PM > > Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) > > Conversation: the IBM Shark > > Subject: RE: the IBM Shark > > > > > > 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] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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] > _________________________________________________________________ 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]
