Comments on: Enterprise Computing: What Next For Virtualisation? http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/09/15/enterprise-computing-what-next-for-virtualisation/ Storage, Virtualisation & Cloud Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:47:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Nigel http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/09/15/enterprise-computing-what-next-for-virtualisation/#comment-964 Nigel Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:25:23 +0000 http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=732#comment-964 Nice photos of Tony's lab. Not as impressive as the EVA test lab though - http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=536 SVC - top notch product though! Nice photos of Tony’s lab. Not as impressive as the EVA test lab though -

http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=536

SVC – top notch product though!

]]> By: Snig http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/09/15/enterprise-computing-what-next-for-virtualisation/#comment-968 Snig Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:25:24 +0000 http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=732#comment-968 Chris, You left the NetApp V-Series out of your post as well. I'm a huge fan of HDS's implementation of virtualization and what it can do for a storage environment. I've done a number of V-Series implementations over the past couple years as well and I think the NetApp direction is probably going to prove the better solution over HDS and IBM. Having the ability to use all of the cool NetApp software on the front end and still have all of the back end functionality and performance is definitely a plus! Chris,

You left the NetApp V-Series out of your post as well. I’m a huge fan of HDS’s implementation of virtualization and what it can do for a storage environment. I’ve done a number of V-Series implementations over the past couple years as well and I think the NetApp direction is probably going to prove the better solution over HDS and IBM. Having the ability to use all of the cool NetApp software on the front end and still have all of the back end functionality and performance is definitely a plus!

]]> By: Chris Evans http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/09/15/enterprise-computing-what-next-for-virtualisation/#comment-966 Chris Evans Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:07:37 +0000 http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=732#comment-966 Sebastian I agree with your comments. As for me personally, I'll go away and familiarise myself with DataCore a little more... :-) Chris Sebastian

I agree with your comments. As for me personally, I’ll go away and familiarise myself with DataCore a little more… :-)

Chris

]]> By: Sebastian Wormser http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/09/15/enterprise-computing-what-next-for-virtualisation/#comment-967 Sebastian Wormser Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:20:01 +0000 http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=732#comment-967 Hi Chris, I wonder why there is no mentioning of DataCore, Falconstor or LSI Storage Virtualization products in your post? From experience I know, that they all work (one a bit better, the other a bit worse) than IBM SVC and Hitachi UVM. We actually won a couple of customers with DataCore storage vitualization against IBM SVC. And I do know that Hitachi USP-VM can be ordered as an (almost) diskless version for virtualization or 3-Datacenter configurations. You are right as far as fabric based virtualization goes. It seems too expensive or complex to implement, and even LSI's approach (using a proprietary fabric-switch-like appliance) can be considered to be an appliance based product, since it still needs an existing SAN for Fan-out. The never-ending discussion about where storage virtualization belongs (controller/SAN/appliance/) has no real value for any customer, it is solely a marketing instrument of vendors. One should judge the different implementations by comparing reliability, scalability, redundancy, performance, etc. If there is no single point of failure and the performance meets requirements, there should be no discussion whether controller-based weighs out SAN-based virtualization. I doubt that we will ever get there, as long as there is EMC, Netapp, IBM, HDS, etc. marketing going on. Can we as independent solution providers focus more on facts instead of marketing, please? (This is a rhetoric questions, not specifically directed to you Chris ;-) Sebastian Hi Chris,

I wonder why there is no mentioning of DataCore, Falconstor or LSI Storage Virtualization products in your post?
From experience I know, that they all work (one a bit better, the other a bit worse) than IBM SVC and Hitachi UVM. We actually won a couple of customers with DataCore storage vitualization against IBM SVC. And I do know that Hitachi USP-VM can be ordered as an (almost) diskless version for virtualization or 3-Datacenter configurations.

You are right as far as fabric based virtualization goes. It seems too expensive or complex to implement, and even LSI’s approach (using a proprietary fabric-switch-like appliance) can be considered to be an appliance based product, since it still needs an existing SAN for Fan-out.
The never-ending discussion about where storage virtualization belongs (controller/SAN/appliance/) has no real value for any customer, it is solely a marketing instrument of vendors. One should judge the different implementations by comparing reliability, scalability, redundancy, performance, etc. If there is no single point of failure and the performance meets requirements, there should be no discussion whether controller-based weighs out SAN-based virtualization.

I doubt that we will ever get there, as long as there is EMC, Netapp, IBM, HDS, etc. marketing going on. Can we as independent solution providers focus more on facts instead of marketing, please? (This is a rhetoric questions, not specifically directed to you Chris ;-)

Sebastian

]]> By: Barry Whyte http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/09/15/enterprise-computing-what-next-for-virtualisation/#comment-965 Barry Whyte Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:02:21 +0000 http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=732#comment-965 Hey Chris, nice photo... of Hursley House that is :) Was good to catch up with you. Hey Chris, nice photo… of Hursley House that is :) Was good to catch up with you.

]]>