That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is this:
don't be bleeding edge, but don't run the oldest stuff you can find
either.
6.5 isn't antiquated and I wouldn't suggest not using this (except for
all of those nasty NFS bugs in 6.5.2). At the same time, 7.0 has been
out for quite some time and is starting to get pretty solid.
What I should have said was: always go with the latest available
release that has proven itself to be stable\reliable.
7.0.3 has bugs... but how many does 6.5.6 have? Part of the issues that
we all face is the fact that some bugs are NEVER fixed in the current
release tree... there are some that we require a fix for, but it will
only be fixed in 7.1... NetApp is going to start changing how much they
will back-port, even in a D release model.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of Hill, Aaron
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:37 PM
To: toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp
I always like hearing others preaching the "latest release" mantra.
Tells me
there are lots of people doing my production testing for me. Thankyou,
this
has mitigated much of my risk and helped NetApp get a 7G release to GD.
7.0.1R1 was a latest release at one stage and I remember most of our
NetApp
representatives telling us we should migrate to 7G. NoSireeBob! 6.5.6
has
been reasonably solid and it gives us all the features we need right now
thankyou very much. Now, if you told me that SpinOS was fully integrated
in
7G, the case would be somewhat more compelling. Alas, I must grow old
waiting for 8G or later :(
Now that 7.0.3 is GD (Jan 24th), we will start reviewing the bugs
outstanding and assess the risk to our environment.
A quick search of the outstanding NOW site shows me 20 pages of bugs
(400+)
in 7.0.3 that are Severity 1, 2 or 3. If I conservatively consider only
5%
of these to be a potential match to my environment, it is still 20 bugs
too
many that could impact my SLA's.
On second thoughts, I will probably stay on 6.5.6 a little longer.
Feel free to tell me I am being paranoid .... I am, and it is proving to
be
lucrative.
Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On
Behalf Of Glenn Walker
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2006 2:35 AM
To: Glenn Dekhayser; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp
Always go with the latest available release :) We've also had problems
with our filers (I think 6 bugs in the 6 weeks I've been here)...
however, we're running 7.0.0.1 which was pretty abysmal as far as
reliability.
7.0.4 should be the new Safe Harbor release when it comes out - it will
do much for stability. As for the quota bug(s), I think there is still
one that exists in 7.0.4, but will probably be addressed with a P
release.
Personally, I'd feel comfortable with upgrading to 7.0.4 for our
enterprise, but also looking at 7.1 when it gets cooked a bit more -
some good enhancements for Exchange in that release.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of Glenn Dekhayser
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:42 AM
To: toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: Replacing our NetApp
John:
You're behind on your OS rev. Most of the bad bugs are out of OnTap7.
I've got tons of clients on it working happily- and we're doing lots of
the 'tough' stuff, like qtree and volume snapMirror, snapvault, quotas,
iSCSI, FCP, NFS and CIFS, all on the same box and aggregates. Clean as
a whistle. I agree that 7.0.1R1 was scratchy- I believe there was a
netapp tech bulletin telling people to get off that rev.
-Glenn Dekhayser
Voyant Strategies, Inc.
>The one that makes the most sense for my needs. After my problems
>with OnTap 7.0.1R1 and quotas and qtrees earlier this week, I'm a bit
>leary of NetApp right now. OnTap 7G is still shaking out major
>bugs...
************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE **************
This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains
information which may be confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return
email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and
any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this
email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or
the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its
subsidiaries.
We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au.
If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us,
please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line.
***************************************************************