Parallel OS is a niche market that doesn’t fit in all scenarios.

Transition is a work in progress that will keep getting better.

8.3 cDOT closed many of the feature gaps between it and 7-Mode, and thus, cDOT is maturing. But maturity takes time. 7-mode has a running head start.

7-mode is limited in comparison to cDOT and needed an update. I plan on blogging a more complete opinion on this at some point. :)

From: Basil <basilberntsen@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:34 PM
To: "Toasters@teaparty.net" <Toasters@teaparty.net>
Subject: Re: cluster OS vs 7-mode

In my mind, CDOT has lots of promise on paper, but where it falls flat against 7-mode is maturity. The maturity of a platform is hard to quantify, but generally more mature platforms will have seen and fixed more bugs. CDOT is still ironing some of these out, compared to 7-mode which just works.

The promises are awesome, though- the idea of being able to have a Netapp that acts as a true pool of resources, where you can move LIFs and volumes around without outages sets them up to compete with the likes of HDS VSP, 3par, and other high scalability storage.

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Francis Kim <fkim@berkcom.com> wrote:
True, 7-mode/cDOT transition is a hurdle for all the obvious reasons, though customers who are fortunate enough to work with VARs that have swing gear freely available can scratch that off the list of worries.  Still, at the end of the day, it’s a data migration project, even with 7MTT helping out.

In greenfield installs, cDOT is a nobrainer.  Also, shops that rely primarily on GUI tools (System Manager) seem to take to cDOT without too much trouble.  Experts on 7-mode, not surprisingly, are the toughest audience.  LIFs/failover groups/broadcase domains/SVMs, etc.  Change == pain?

Of all the cDOT features, the biggest win that my customers report with cDOT so far is its volume mobility.  The promise of non-disruptive maintenance (e.g. head swaps) is pretty enticing, though most cDOT shops aren’t quite mature enough for head upgrades just yet.  Since I do a lot of NetApp maintenance work, this is the feature that excites me the most.

I see NetApp getting beaten up in the small to medium virtual environments by hyperconverged platforms, but file serving at scale still remains a challenge, for which NetApp has a long standing and satisfying solution, Nutanix’s recently announced file serving capability notwithstanding.

My two bits.

Francis Kim | Engineer
 
BerkCom | www.berkcom.com
NetApp | Cisco | Supermicro | Brocade | VMware

On Jun 10, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Iluhes <iluhes@yahoo.com> wrote:

For years I been complaining how much I dont like Cluster OS over 7-mode.
I been telling netapp folks to keep 7 mode as an option and parallel OS
The storage field is evolving and there are so many more options now and reading this, looks like people are might voiting against cluster OS with their feet. Am I right?

 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Tra...
NetApp told analysts that fourth-quarter 2015 sales and earnings took a big hit because of a slower-than-expected transition of customers to the company's new Clust...
Preview by Yahoo
 



_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.net
http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters


_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.net
http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters