Survival in the Blogosphere

Hey here we are a few days in and so far I hope I haven’t rubbished anyone else’s product. I’m even trying to be more respectful of XIV’s denigrators : )

That second post was a marathon of detailed research I can tell you.

The third had a lot more research in it than it looks on the surface, but because the essence of the debate was always going to be around product positioning I left the maths out. Anyone can add up numbers of vendors brochures and get KVA and BTU/Hr results.

The aim of those two posts was to get a ‘fair suck of the sav’ (as we say in A/NZ) for XIV. It works really well in the field, and it could do with just a little more respect out in the blogosphere.

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. One small little detail that you seem to overlook:

    Adding up the Spec Sheet numbers will not give you an accurate representation of the power requirements of a given system. Nor will reading the site preparation guides.

    Shocking?

    Hardly. UL and other governing-slash-cetification bodies require that power requirements be specified in maximums, even if the system configurations will never reach those maximums. And then those maximums have to be rounded UP to the next larger breaker size allowed in each geography (so yes, the spec sheets will differ for US, UK and Japanese deployments, for example).

    So for an array like V-Max that requires two separate paths so that it can keep running if one path should fail, you will find spec sheets that require perhaps 260% of what it would take to run the system one ONE leg of power – that’s so each leg will have sufficient headroom. But under normal operations, if the system were FULLY configured with total capacity, controllers, memory and workloads, the maximum power requirement should be (100/260) or about 38.46% of the power requirements documented in the spec sheet and/or site prep guide. And if you use less than the full compliment of drives (not possible with an XIV, I know), then the power requirements would be even less than what you find in the spec sheets.

    So, I think we just want to see your data so we can be sure you’re actually doing the appropriate maths, and not just spouting IBM FUD and marketing cruft

    And I’ll also suggest you not start whining that you’re not being given a fair shake when you spout personal assertions with absolutely zero evidence, at least not until you’ve actually invested in earning your credibility and the respect of your audience.

    Oh, and on a power-per-system scale, the IOmega home NAS boxes win hands down.

    Power utilization can only be compared on a scale of Capacity and Purpose – your other error was asserting that an XIV array is Fit for the same Purposes as are Enterprise Class arrays. Works in sales and marketing, maybe, where people don’t have all the facts. But that’s an assertion that doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny of the storage blogosphere (and not just me, mind you).

    Like

  2. Great blog! About time we got some even handed blogging focused on IBM storage and XIV in particular. I work for a VAR in Puerto Rico and for such a small market we are doing great with XIV. Looking forward to future posts.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: