Hi,
I am looking to upgrade from Ontap 6.5 to Ontap 7.2.3 on our FAS 940's an R270's and heard that synchronous snapmirrors are not fully supported on aggregate volumes yet and will not be until Ontap 7.3, can any one confirm this?
Thanks
I recently had someone tell me that I should be worried about the fact that WAFL is a proprietary format.
Why should I care. If all the filers in the world should all of a sudden die than I wouldn't be able to use the storage elsewhere? I think I have some other concerns of a more pressing nature.
Jack
Sounds like another linux open source warrior living in his parents basement.
They pop up from time to time usually to "educate" you that you can use open source and a usb flash drive to equal the performance of a netapp, EMC, or <insert proprietary vendor here> at little to no cost.
*yawn*
:)
-- Daniel Leeds Manager, Storage Operations Edmunds.com
Isn't NTFS technically a 'proprietary' format too? As is Veritas' file system? Pretty silly statement.
Glenn (the other one)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Jack Lyons Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:24 PM Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: FUD?
I recently had someone tell me that I should be worried about the fact that WAFL is a proprietary format.
Why should I care. If all the filers in the world should all of a sudden die than I wouldn't be able to use the storage elsewhere? I think I have some other concerns of a more pressing nature.
Jack
I recently got this from a rather large 3 letter vendor who, until recently, had a lot of proprietary software.
My position is the same as yours Jack. I was running proprietary file systems and software fine before and I will run them fine afterwards. If the proprietary stuff is better than open source why would I run open source? So I can have the privilege of coding fixes in my copious spare time? Thanks but no thanks.
And honestly, to get all the Really Cool Stuff TN to work you pretty much have to get in bed with someone because we've all seen what open standards get us (Brocade and Cisco anyone?).
Jeff Kennedy QCT Engineering Compute 858-651-6592
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com
[mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]
On Behalf Of Jack Lyons Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:24 PM Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: FUD?
I recently had someone tell me that I should be worried about the fact that WAFL is a proprietary format.
Why should I care. If all the filers in the world should all of a sudden die than I wouldn't be able to use the storage elsewhere? I think I have some other concerns of a more pressing nature.
Jack
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:34:54PM -0700, Kennedy, Jeffrey wrote:
If the proprietary stuff is better than open source why would I run open source? So I can have the privilege of coding fixes in my copious spare time? Thanks but no thanks.
It's like doing backups. When everything is fine, why waste your copious spare time with it? But if something fails (i.e. your proprietary software fails and the vendor doesn't help), you had better looked at something you (or your neighbour) can fix.
Of course, wether that advantage outweighs its costs (like having to use inferior stuff if a proprietary solution would perform better) depends on your situation. But in my experience there are lots of places where the open software is good enough or even better than the proprietary software.
Greetings,
-
Bryano -
Glenn Dekhayser -
Jack Lyons -
Kennedy, Jeffrey -
Leeds, Daniel -
Michael van Elst