Kendall Libby wrote:
right now. Going by units of "1 cpu, 1gb cache, 200gb disk", EMC comes in cheaper after a small number of units. For us. YMWV.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:
But these wouldn't be units that would be equal comparison. What matters is primarily ops/$ and GB/$ for roughly the same
Kendall indeed pointed out one "unit" measure, combining performance and storage, that works well *for us*. ops/$ and GB/$ may not be a primary concern for everyone [0], nor may it be a majority concern [1]; I don't think it's fair to make such a blanket statement.
There are subjective factors, of course. And, if you ask NetApp for their super-duper maintenance and support plans with bacon and extra cheese, in order to try to narrow the service level gap and compare apples-to-apples with what EMC offers by default, the price gap narrows quite a bit, too.
Bruce wrote:
not doubting what you say; I'm just annoyed customers are comparing the two and yet don't appear to have numbers on this.
[...]
Since we don't know how much all the EMC and related stuff cost, it's hard to accurately compare the two solutions. I bet it is much higher,
[...]
Personally I don't mind who prefers what just so long as all the facts are on the table.
Vendor quotes are often confidential, and info gained from NDA's certainly are, so release of numbers can be a big no-no. In a public forum, we can only quote list prices and independent performance numbers and currently shipping features. But here, as in our personal consumer lives, "nobody pays list price." ;)
It's hard to make an orange look like an apple; and, it's equally hard to make a pear look like an apple, too. Vendors in a comparison have to be sqeeuzed into a framework that is not complementary to any of them. Apples-to-apples comparisons are very difficult when the paradigms and company philosophies are vastly different, too. If we were talking about CheapPCDiskDriveVendor #1 and #2, it might come down soley to parameter/$ and we probabaly wouldn't be having this interesting discussion. ;)
[0] I ran across this quote this weekend which was rather interesting: "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey." --John Ruskin [2]
[1] I'm with Brian (?) on the ops issue, though. More, more, more!
[2] I'm not commenting on either vendor in question specifically. I just thought it was a nice thought to think about since so many people get wrapped up in one thing ($) when making purchases, for business or pleasure. Step back from the tree and look at the forest.
Until next time...
The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7000 x7792 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098 508-647-7001 FAX tmerrill@mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---
----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd C. Merrill" tmerrill@mathworks.com To: toasters@mathworks.com Cc: sirbruce@ix.netcom.com; "Kendall Libby" fubar@mathworks.com Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 8:45 AM Subject: Re: EMC Celerra vs NetApp Filer
Kendall Libby wrote:
right now. Going by units of "1 cpu, 1gb cache, 200gb disk", EMC comes in cheaper after a small number of units. For us. YMWV.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:
But these wouldn't be units that would be equal comparison. What matters is primarily ops/$ and GB/$ for roughly the same
Kendall indeed pointed out one "unit" measure, combining performance and storage, that works well *for us*.
I just don't see how it could. There's no performance associated with it; all it says is one solution requires X "units" and the other solution requires Y "units". Just because X is greater or less than Y doesn't mean anything. It isn't even sufficient for calculating required rack space.
After a few units, for the same $, EMC can supply more units than Netapp. Great. That means you have more CPUs, more cache, and more disk. But that could also mean less performance, and furthermore you could add additional space to the Netapps to make up for the space difference.
ops/$ and GB/$ may not be a primary concern for everyone [0], nor may it be a majority concern [1]; I don't think it's fair to make such a blanket statement.
I think it is fair. I think it should concern every customer. I think it probably, at least indirectly, would concern you and Kendall if we could establish what those figures are for each solution. I still get the impression that the Celerra solution is being unfailry compared.
Bruce wrote:
not doubting what you say; I'm just annoyed customers are comparing the two and yet don't appear to have numbers on this.
[...]
Since we don't know how much all the EMC and related stuff cost, it's hard to accurately compare the two solutions. I bet it is much higher,
[...]
Personally I don't mind who prefers what just so long as all the facts are on the table.
Vendor quotes are often confidential, and info gained from NDA's certainly are, so release of numbers can be a big no-no. In a public forum, we can only quote list prices and independent performance numbers and currently shipping features. But here, as in our personal consumer lives, "nobody pays list price." ;)
EMC makes you sign an NDA that you can't release your own performance numbers? That would be reason enough for me to drop them.
As for the vendor quotes, I can understand that, but if you can provide "X is cheaper than Y" then you can provide rough figures for the other measures I meantioned, without revealing the total confidential price.
[2] I'm not commenting on either vendor in question specifically. I just thought it was a nice thought to think about since so many people get wrapped up in one thing ($) when making purchases, for business or pleasure. Step back from the tree and look at the forest.
That's what I'm saying. Just because the EMC looks cheaper in "units" doesn't mean it's better, or even cheaper, in the long run.
Bruce
-
Bruce Sterling Woodcock -
Todd C. Merrill