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 OSThe 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? NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Transition Tough, Layoffs Coming
| | | | | | | | | | | 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... | | | | View on www.crn.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | |
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.commailto:fkim@berkcom.com
BerkCom | www.berkcom.comhttp://www.berkcom.com/ NetApp | Cisco | Supermicro | Brocade | VMware
On Jun 10, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Iluhes <iluhes@yahoo.commailto: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?
NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Transition Tough, Layoffs Cominghttp://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm
NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Tra...http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm 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...
View on www.crn.comhttp://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm
Preview by Yahoo
_______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
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 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?
NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Transition Tough, Layoffs Coming http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm
[image: image] http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm
NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Tra... http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm 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... View on www.crn.com http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm 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
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.commailto:basilberntsen@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:34 PM To: "Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net" <Toasters@teaparty.netmailto: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.commailto: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 510-644-1599 x334tel:510-644-1599%20x334 | fkim@berkcom.commailto:fkim@berkcom.com
BerkCom | www.berkcom.comhttp://www.berkcom.com/ NetApp | Cisco | Supermicro | Brocade | VMware
On Jun 10, 2015, at 2:43 PM, Iluhes <iluhes@yahoo.commailto: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?
NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Transition Tough, Layoffs Cominghttp://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm
NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Tra...http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm 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...
View on www.crn.comhttp://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm
Preview by Yahoo
_______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
_______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.netmailto:Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
If cDOT and 7-mode SnapVault could co-exist, it would make life a lot easier -- especially for us IBM N-Series customers looking to protect our investments for a few more years. :)
IBM obviously won't support cDOT on existing 7-mode N-Series installations and if my new buys of FAS are cDOT then things can't talk. :(
(I mention this to every NetApp rep and VP I run into :))
Ray
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:44:06AM +0000, Parisi, Justin wrote:
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 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? NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Transition Tough, Layoffs Coming NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Tra... image 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... View on www.crn.com Preview by Yahoo
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:34:09PM -0400, Basil wrote:
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.
We are just about to go to cluster mode and I cannot wait. I cannot see any reason to stay on 7-mode other than inertia.
As for maturity, there is some merit on your statement, but I see a much bigger issue is how much you trust your vendor. The biggest reason I like netapp is that they take data protection seriously.
"Just works" is why people are still using DOS. If you want new features you have to move forward with releases. Its unreasonable for any company to support old code past its use by date. IMHO, 7-mode is past its use by date.
Regards, pdg
Peter Gray Ph (direct): +61 2 4221 3770 Information Management & Technology Services Ph (switch): +61 2 4221 3555 University of Wollongong Fax: +61 2 4229 1958 Wollongong NSW 2522 Email: pdg@uow.edu.au Australia URL: http://pdg.uow.edu.au
We took the leap in a big way and we still can't transition the first system to prod because of essentially bugs in the FC setup- the interop matrix doesn't mesh with that of HP. It's not just semantics, maturity of a platform has a measurable effect on risk.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Peter D. Gray pdg@uow.edu.au wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:34:09PM -0400, Basil wrote:
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.
We are just about to go to cluster mode and I cannot wait. I cannot see any reason to stay on 7-mode other than inertia.
As for maturity, there is some merit on your statement, but I see a much bigger issue is how much you trust your vendor. The biggest reason I like netapp is that they take data protection seriously.
"Just works" is why people are still using DOS. If you want new features you have to move forward with releases. Its unreasonable for any company to support old code past its use by date. IMHO, 7-mode is past its use by date.
Regards, pdg
Peter Gray Ph (direct): +61 2 4221 3770 Information Management & Technology Services Ph (switch): +61 2 4221 3555 University of Wollongong Fax: +61 2 4229 1958 Wollongong NSW 2522 Email: pdg@uow.edu.au Australia URL: http://pdg.uow.edu.au _______________________________________________ Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
I don't know, but as someone who's been working with 7-mode since 2006, I love cluster mode. Specifically, 8.3. SVMs, migrating volumes hot between aggregates and ADP are the big drivers I've seen that move people to cDOT. Cluster mode has basically done to storage what VMware did to servers - virtualise all the client-facing aspects so you never have downtime on your service ever again, and this makes everything flexible. Unified Manager is almost actually a single pane of glass for HA monitoring, System Manager is worlds ahead of FilerView (well, I actually use it sometimes, which I can't say I ever did of FilerView), and the CLI is remarkably powerful.
Obviously it's not perfect (oh come back Performance Advisor, all is forgiven) but once you've got your head around it it's miles easier to maintain and manage than 7-mode systems ever were.
On 11 June 2015 at 07:43, 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?
NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Transition Tough, Layoffs Coming http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm
[image: image] http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm
NetApp 4Q: Channel Sales Fall, Clustered Data OnTap Tra... http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm 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... View on www.crn.com http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300076888/netapp-4q-channel-sales-fall-clustered-data-ontap-transition-tough-layoffs-coming.htm Preview by Yahoo
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
"Iluhes" == Iluhes iluhes@yahoo.com writes:
Iluhes> For years I been complaining how much I dont like Cluster OS Iluhes> over 7-mode. I been telling netapp folks to keep 7 mode as an Iluhes> option and parallel OS The storage field is evolving and there Iluhes> are so many more options now and reading this, looks like Iluhes> people are might voiting against cluster OS with their Iluhes> feet. Am I right?
I personally like cDOT more than regular 7-mode, if only for the CLI making things so much simpler.
The training and setup for NFS exports (the CORE of Filer heritage) is annoying and complicated. But doable. But needs tweaking and better diagnostics.
Or the training needs to be better.
But it's the future, SVMs and Vol moves across aggregates and such are the way forward in my mind, since they help abstract away the underlying storage better. Now if Netapp would just drop the prices in extra shelves so that it was cheaper to expand them... but we've always wanted that.
John
-
Basil -
Francis Kim -
Iluhes -
John Stoffel -
Parisi, Justin -
Peta Thames -
Peter D. Gray -
Ray Van Dolson