On 04/16/98 11:37:53 you wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 sirbruce@ix.netcom.com wrote:
|On 04/16/98 09:10:23 you wrote: |> |>> >I know that Stornet has a slightly better price than NetApp, but it is |>> >still several times what I'd expect to pay for RAM. |>> |>> My experience has been that if you get third-party components, they are |>> going to be less reliable. Period. |>> |> |>That's a shame. You might try some other third-party vendors. | |Perhaps you'd care to tell us what "others" you refer to? I've had |experience with just about every vendor I can think of. What third-party |vendor have you found to be more reliable than Netapp's components? |Perhaps your experience with a given vendor differs from mine.
I think you have a serious misunderstanding about "netapp components" bruce.
Netapp uses:
Dallas SEmiconductor NVRAM Samsung DRAM Seagate Hard Drives Alteon gigabit ethernet cards Eurologic storage shelves
I would hardly call it "3rd party" if you buy the *EXACT* OEM equipment netapp uses.
Oh, I see what you are getting at now... as if "netapp components" don't come from a third-party vendor in the first place. I'm afraid you're the one who misunderstood; within the context of the discussion, we were distinguishing between the original vendor of the component and getting it straight from Netapp itself. Thus, when I say third-party components are less reliable, I mean "If you get Samsung DRAM from Samsung, it's going to be less reliable than if you get Samsung DRAM from Netapp" in this context. You suggested another vendor was required; perhaps you didn't think I meant Samsung in the first place. But that's what I asked... what vendor do you think is more reliable, or at least the same reliability, getting it direct than from Netapp? In other words, are you saying the Samsung memory you get direct from Samsung is more reliable than the Samsung DRAM you get from Netapp?
As has been pointed out before, Netapp tests DRAM they get from Samsung before it goes out the door, and does find failures, so I can't see how Samsung direct could be any MORE reliable, unless Netapp somehow damages the DRAM in assembly or shipment.
Bruce
sirbruce@ix.netcom.com wrote:
As has been pointed out before, Netapp tests DRAM they get from Samsung before it goes out the door, and does find failures, so I can't see how Samsung direct could be any MORE reliable, unless Netapp somehow damages the DRAM in assembly or shipment.
Bruce
Maybe it may make people feel better if NetApp could supply some facts that would show people what kind of failure rate they find on some of the different lines of products. It is one thing to say that they find failures, but are the failures 1 in 10 or 1 in 200?
I would agree that if the failure rate is high (i.e. 1 in 10), then NetApp is certianly pushing the edge of the components. BUT (and a big but at that) if the failure rate is much lower (e.g. 1 in 100 or 200 components), then I would tend to say that NetApp's argument for testing does not hold any water. The small amount of failures that NetApp finds could be attributed to manufacturing defects and delivery problems.
Now of course NetApp is under no obligation to supply any figures, but it could end some of the arguments concerning the pricing of NetApp components. -- Gerard Hickey email: Gerard.Hickey@nsc.com National Semiconductor Corporation phone: +1 207 541 6101 Advance Development Center, MS 03-03 fax: +1 207 541 6108 5 Foden Road, South Portland, Maine 04106-1706
-
Gerard Hickey -
sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com