The last statement "Interesting that the support contract . .." - where can I find more information on that?
I thought Xiotech had announce a 5-year warranty, with no hardware maintenance contract of any kind required on this?
People who believe SPC benchmarks are going to really show you an even-handed apples-to-apples comparison of storage arrays are fools. It's a vendor tool, they basically get to design their own tests and configure their boxes to optimize the results. If you dig deeper into each test you'll see boxes configured in ways you'd never actually have them in production.
It's akin to NVidia or ATI doctoring drivers to excel at specific benchmarks.
While this is often true (often configured for tests in ways never used in production), if you actually read the whitepaper, it clearly states that the Xiotech test had the disk 75% full. Many other SPC tests "cook the books" by using only "outer tracks" on the disks, running the disk only 10% or 25% full to reduce seeking or keep all I/Os in cache etc. But when you run the disks 75% full you are essentially full-stroking the disks, so are demonstrating much closer to "real world" use, aren't you?
Slashdot Mirror
The last statement "Interesting that the support contract . . ." - where can I find more information on that?
I thought Xiotech had announce a 5-year warranty, with no hardware maintenance contract of any kind required on this?
It's akin to NVidia or ATI doctoring drivers to excel at specific benchmarks.
While this is often true (often configured for tests in ways never used in production), if you actually read the whitepaper, it clearly states that the Xiotech test had the disk 75% full. Many other SPC tests "cook the books" by using only "outer tracks" on the disks, running the disk only 10% or 25% full to reduce seeking or keep all I/Os in cache etc. But when you run the disks 75% full you are essentially full-stroking the disks, so are demonstrating much closer to "real world" use, aren't you?