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
510-644-1599 x334 | fkim@berkcom.com
 
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?




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