Thanks everyone for replying.. From what I heard and have seen the product at customer locations is its reliable and fast...

We were just concerned thinking about scenario where EMC would buy Acopia and then the 2 companies (Netapp and EMC) would end up pointing fingers at each other for any issues with NFS :(

Other than that anyone know when Netapp is coming up with their Spinnaker integration...

-Venkat

-----Original Message----- From: John Stoffel [mailto:john.stoffel@taec.toshiba.com] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:15 AM To: Jonathan Cragle Cc: Venkat Appineni; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: Experience with Acopia

Jonathan> Pros: Jonathan> 1.. Their CEO is fairly well known in the industry.

So?

Jonathan> 2.. Microsoft Gold Partner

So? Since when has that meant anything?

Jonathan> 3.. Won an award from Leading Lights (same publishing Jonathan> group that publishes Byte and Switch)

Might mean something...

I think some of the pros that you ignore or don't mention are:

1. virtualizes your NFS/CIFS storage so you can move/manage/upgrade that backend without user downtime or them even noticing. I like to think of it as VxVM for NFS/CIFS. In my case, we're looking at it strictly from an NFS point of view.

2. Allows you to do HSM style management. Files which aren't accessed in a certain amount of time can be migrated transparently between backend storage pools.

3. It's not trying to pass through the NFS traffic, it's both a server and client and does it's own translation. This is unlike the Rainfinity box which sat in the middle of the stream and played games with what the clients saw.

4. It's an appliance. I don't have to setup an OS and then applications and get it all configured to make it run. It's pretty much plug and play. Just like NetApps.

Jonathan> 1.. Expensive: The ARX1000 lists for $45,000; the ARX6000 Jonathan> lists for $150,000. You'll need two of them to provide Jonathan> redundancy, so you'll need to double both of these prices.

Yup, this is certainly a con. It's gotten better price wise if you look at how many Acopia volumes they now allow, versus backends per Acopia volume.

But noone has ever said that NetApps are cheap, but they are good devices.

Jonathan> 2.. Proprietary file system

I have no clue what you're talking about here, the Acopia provides an NFS or CIFS mount point for clients to access. It uses CIFS or NFS to access the backend storage. What filesystem do you see here?

Jonathan> 3.. In-band solution: depends on who you ask, but this can Jonathan> directly impact your network utilization (Of course, Jonathan> Acopia will cite a report they paid to have done by ESG Jonathan> (Steve Duplessie group) that states "no impact on network, Jonathan> etc. There aren't enough installations (last I heard they Jonathan> had less than 15 actual customers).

Of course it's in-band, it's virtualizing your backend storage, so it does have an impact. In our case, we'll never see it since we're space contrained, not performance contrained. If absolute raw performance is so darn important, why are you using NFS in the first place?

Have you looked at how much overhead VxVM puts into a system versus just accessing the disk directly? I never see any complaints there, and I suspect (no real numbers) that VxVM puts some measureable overhead into the loop. But the benefits outweigh the costs by a large margin.

Also, if I were setting up an Acopia, I would have my clients connecting via the public LAN, and the Acopia and the backend storage all talking over their own dedicated LAN. Network utilization should be a non-issue then.

Jonathan> 4.. Used mostly for file migration and then the appliance Jonathan> is ripped out and moved to the next location for migration Jonathan> of files. I'm not aware of anyone using it for global Jonathan> namespace purposes.

So why is this a con? It's more of what the customer is choosing to do with the tool, not with what the tool can do. You need to also say why this is a *bad* thing anyway.

And as you say, with only 15 customers so far (maybe more by now), just because some or alot of them have used it for migration, does that mean that the one(s) who are using it for virtualization (global namespace purposes) are doing something extraordinary?

Maybe I don't understand your reasoning here, I'd appreciate if you could expand on why you think this is a con of the product as opposed to a mis-use by the customer.

Jonathan> 5.. Can't leverage the current computer resources one Jonathan> already has, rather you're paying extra for the hardware. Jonathan> You also can't upgrade the hardware as you see fit, rather Jonathan> you'd need to upgrade to a different switch.

When was the last time you took an old computer and turned it into a network switch?

Jonathan> 6.. Partners with NetApp, but not OEM'd by them.

This is a strength in my mind, since you can use the Acopia to make the transition from one vendor's backend solution to another vendor without hassle. Leverage with your next set of price negotiations with NetApp.

Jonathan> Have you already evaluated using VFM software to do this? Jonathan> 1.. It's more cost-effective than Acopia Jonathan> 2.. Sold and supported by NetApp

Does the VFM software support me using some other vendors backend storage? For example ,the Acopia would let me keep the currently accessed files on the NetApp, but once they aren't used for a while, I could migrate them automatically to cheaper/slower storage. And then I don't need to do backups either of that data, since I know I have backups elsewhere.

Jonathan> 3.. Provides support for NetApp and Microsoft snapshots Jonathan> and more.

So why is this an advantage?

Jonathan> 4.. Software suite of applications that provide Jonathan> policy-based global namespace, migration, archiving, DR, Jonathan> namespace backup/restore, data classfication & reporting.

How is this different from the Acopia?

Jonathan> 5.. Award-winning (has won three major industry awards in Jonathan> the past couple of months)

Bogus, I could care less whether it won an award, but how does it work in the minds of my peers?

Jonathan> 6.. Out-of-band solution that won't impact the network

So what if you run the DFM servers on a slow box and it can't keep up with the clients and their needs? What happens then?

Jonathan> 7.. Standards-based

Which ones? Acopia supports NFS and CIFS.

Jonathan> 8.. You can actually try it before you buy it versus going Jonathan> through a huge "selection" process to get an Acopia switch Jonathan> in-house to test in your environment. Download is Jonathan> available.

This is a possible advantage, in that you can setup an in house test setup without having to bring hardware in house. I will certainly buy that arguement. But it's not an appliance, which means I now have more work to do setting up the server to host the DFM software. And I have to setup, test, document all the failover steps for DFM as well. So why am I not buying an appliance which has all this work done for me already?

And of course, I'm speaking for myself, not my company.

John John Stoffel - Senior Staff Systems Administrator - System LSI Group Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. - http://www.toshiba.com/taec john.stoffel@taec.toshiba.com - 508-486-1087