Re: Recommended Sun hardware SAN
From: Nigel P. Longbottom (not_at_all.valid)
Date: 02/08/05
- Next message: Dan Koren: "Re: Nasty fork() bomb"
- Previous message: Andreas Karrer: "Re: do you use FQDN as the hostname?"
- In reply to: Jesse DeFer: "Re: Recommended Sun hardware SAN"
- Next in thread: Atro Tossavainen: "Re: Recommended Sun hardware SAN"
- Reply: Atro Tossavainen: "Re: Recommended Sun hardware SAN"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:36:55 +0000
Jesse DeFer wrote:
> I would be hesitant to recommend an EMC CX-series to somebody. We've
> had very good luck with ours, and it is nicer than the 15 A5200's we had
> before. However, I'd look at somebody else who might offer better
> features first. The fact that it runs Windows NT as it's embedded OS
> kinda sticks in one's craw too. EMC is not what one would call an open
> company like Sun either, they want to do everything themselves (or have
> Unisys do it, and they have zero Solaris knowledge). When we purchased
> it, Sun had no competitive mid-range equipment, now they have some very
> attractive looking stuff so I'd consider them first.
>
Thanks to everyone who replied. Seems that the EMC / Emulex combination
is popular but only because Sun didn't have a competitive product a few
years ago.
Your experiences have been very helpful.
Nigel
- Next message: Dan Koren: "Re: Nasty fork() bomb"
- Previous message: Andreas Karrer: "Re: do you use FQDN as the hostname?"
- In reply to: Jesse DeFer: "Re: Recommended Sun hardware SAN"
- Next in thread: Atro Tossavainen: "Re: Recommended Sun hardware SAN"
- Reply: Atro Tossavainen: "Re: Recommended Sun hardware SAN"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]