This is not correct. Auspex does support NFS, CIFS and HTTP in the same manner as Netapps - in fact, instead of emulating the protocols, they are incorporated into the Auspex O/S. I have no idea if this is better or not.
-----Original Message----- From: Arvind K Aggarwal [mailto:aggarwla@cig.mot.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 10:25 AM To: tkaczma@gryf.net; drechsau@tiny.net Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: How does Netapps win and lose business? (cont.)
Really! Auspex was in our office (I work with Tom) last Friday and asked us to use SAMBA.
Arvind Aggarwal
Cwaeth Sam Schorr:
I'm afraid I don't understand what "emulating" a protocol means. Were I an end user, I shouldn't have to care where and how a protocol stack is executed, so long as it executes fast enough that I don't have to care.
I presume that by "Auspex O/S" you mean DataXpress, the embedded OS that runs on the NP, not the Solaris kernel that runs on the HP. Note that the implementation of CIFS et al. within Data ONTAP is at about the same "depth" as its implementation in DataXpress. If your criterion for protocol validity is that it runs under Unix or NT, then not only do NetApp and Auspex fail on this account, but also Cisco, NetWare, Ascend, and so on.
"Better or not" is best judged by comparing the performance of the implementations, although it may also be valid to consider how easy it is to maintain or improve an implementation.
Mike Tuciarone Platform Software
-
Michael J. Tuciarone -
Sam Schorr