The two 6140 arrays we have work just fine. We have had some minor firmware issues a while ago, and swapping a tray IOM which had older firmware was an issue at one time. They are no more reliable than a 2540, and probably less reliable since they have more components (with several trays attached).
Performance wise they are slower, we spent lots of time comparing FC in the 6140 to SAS in the 2540. -- mike cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] 864.650.2577 (cell) 864.656.3809 (office) computing & information technology 340 computer court anderson, sc 29625 > From: Justin Vassallo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: Ixaris Systems Ltd > Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:47:33 +0200 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [storage-discuss] 2x2540 FC vs 1x6140FC > > Mike, that's some pretty impressive results for the 2540 > > I will avoid iSCSI because i've read in various posts that the latency is > considerable, particularly for an intensive db (and this one is expected to > grow to 200G over the next 12 months). > > What i need to consider is that our WAN is not strong enough to support > multi-site mirroring. I will be having site-to-site db replication, but that > is not prone to latency and WAN issues as the mirroring would be. > > Therefore, of utmost importance is the reliability of a single array. You > mentioned a lot and favoured the 2540. Can you please give some info on your > experience of the 6140? > > Rgds > justin > NB - The 2540 fully populated with 300G 15krpm disks costs just a bit more > than the 6140 with 150G disks, while giving about 0.6TB more space per > array. > _______________________________________________ > storage-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss _______________________________________________ storage-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss
