Terabytes at NY Financial Technical Expo this week
Michael E Willett
Datawarehousers who missed the conference can contact us
directly for the terabyte Storage SuperServer info that was
handed out. Sybase had a big booth there too.
M Willett
Storage Computer
(603) 880-3005
http://www.storage.com/
Greg Lindahl
In article <Dxyny...@world.std.com>,
Michael E Willett <m...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Datawarehousers who missed the conference can contact us
>directly for the terabyte Storage SuperServer info that was
>handed out. Sybase had a big booth there too.
Of course, before you contact Storage Computer, you should be aware
that they've been unethically advertising on Usenet for a long time,
and get flamed every time they post. They even have their own special
section on the comp.arch.storage FAQ due to their ads.
-- g
Michael E Willett
lin...@deshaw.com (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In article <Dxyny...@world.std.com>,
>Michael E Willett <m...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>Datawarehousers who missed the conference can contact us
>>directly for the terabyte Storage SuperServer info that was
>>handed out. Sybase had a big booth there too.
>Of course, before you contact Storage Computer, you should be aware
....
It's significant to note that Storage Computer was the only major
storage vendor exhibiting at the NY Financial Technology Expo,
demonstrating a large RAID 7 with 25 4 GB Seagate drives. With the
May 27th Business Week article reporting Storage Computer as the
4th highest earnings growth company among some 10,000 public
companies studied, CIO and system administrator Q&A sessions at
the Storage Computer booth were pretty intense.
The keynote address was given by the NASDAQ president, and
received excellent reviews by the SRO audience.
Greg Lindahl
In article <Dy2BB...@world.std.com>,
Michael E Willett <m...@world.std.com> wrote:
>It's significant to note that Storage Computer was the only major
>storage vendor exhibiting at the NY Financial Technology Expo,
BTW, Mike's normal response to criticism of his Usenet etiquette is to
reply to the posting, cutting out all the criticism and picking some
pretext to respond. In this case, he came up with:
>demonstrating a large RAID 7 with 25 4 GB Seagate drives.
Big deal. Many, many vendors sell RAID configurations in that size;
the problem with yours is that yours has to be in one raid volume,
which is very inconvenient for Sybase logs. Not to mention inflexible.
But don't worry, Mike will claim he has some whitepaper which shows
great performance; it probably compares Sybase running on an Apple ][
with floppy disks against a new STORAGE COMPUTER RAID 7 system, and
sees a 1000x speedup.
-- g
Greg Lindahl
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
Michael E Willett
lin...@deshaw.com (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>In article <Dy2BB...@world.std.com>,
>Michael E Willett <m...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>It's significant to note that Storage Computer was the only major
>>storage vendor exhibiting at the NY Financial Technology Expo,
>BTW, Mike's normal response to criticism of his Usenet etiquette is to
>reply to the posting, cutting out all the criticism and picking some
>pretext to respond. In this case, he came up with:
>>demonstrating a large RAID 7 with 25 4 GB Seagate drives.
>Big deal. Many, many vendors sell RAID configurations in that size;
That's true. They just happened to demo one of that size at the FT
Expo. This was the same RAID 7 storage server they had shown a few weeks
earlier at the NYC data warehousing show. I believe they will be
demonstrating a different RAID 7 at UNIX Expo in NYC in a few weeks.
The new Storage SuperServer they are now installing in the Storage
Computer headquarters demonstration center has about 40 9 GB
drives. The stated maximum capacity is in the 4 terabyte range.
>the problem with yours is that yours has to be in one raid volume,
>which is very inconvenient for Sybase logs. Not to mention inflexible.
The single RAID volume can be allocated among up-to-12 different
hosts, including different vendor hosts, so it's very flexible.
Actually, RAID 7s are installed in more Sybase accounts than
either Oracle or Informix, from what I've heard. Details of some
big Sybase installations are at http://www.storage.com/sybase.html
...
>great performance; it probably compares Sybase running on an Apple ][
>with floppy disks against a new STORAGE COMPUTER RAID 7 system, and
>sees a 1000x speedup.
The big Sybase users see substantial improvements in disk I/O
performance from what they previously had available. Details
are available to serious technical people.
M Willett
Storage Computer
http://www.storage.com/sybase.html
Greg Lindahl
In article <DyBL...@world.std.com>,
Michael E Willett <m...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>the problem with yours is that yours has to be in one raid volume,
>>which is very inconvenient for Sybase logs. Not to mention inflexible.
>
>The single RAID volume can be allocated among up-to-12 different
>hosts, including different vendor hosts, so it's very flexible.
This just shows you have no idea what the needs of a database are. You
might want RAID-4 or 5 for your data, and a striped/mirrored log. Your
system can't provide this. You might also want more than one raid set
for data. Your system can't provide this. You might want to
mirror/stripe your data instead of having it be RAID-4 or 5. Your
system can't provide this. It is inflexible.
>The big Sybase users see substantial improvements in disk I/O
>performance from what they previously had available.
Big deal. The real comparison is if you system is better than what the
competition offers, today. But the competition doesn't engage in
unethical and stupid advertising on usenet, so they are ahead of you
already.
-- g
Greg Lindahl
>>>The single RAID volume can be allocated among up-to-12 different
>>>hosts, including different vendor hosts, so it's very flexible.
>
>>This just shows you have no idea what the needs of a database are. You
>RAID 7 is widely installed with lots of big Oracle, Informix, and Sybase
>databases. See the various DB customer documentaries at
>http://www.storage.com/
Note the careful editing -- I explained 3 ways in which his product
was not flexible enough to deal with databases, and he replies with
nothing but a boast about his sales. Nobody home.
Michael E Willett
lin...@deshaw.com (Greg Lindahl) writes:
Greg mentions in comp.databases.sybase, "RAID 5 has
pretty bad write performance." I agree with him
on that. Since he is in NY, he might find it
illuminating to stop by the Storage Computer booth
at UNIX EXPO next week, and find out how RAID 7 actually
performs in the very large, real-world Sybase environments
in the New York City area. The real topics of interest
to the big Wall Street firms are storage server raw speed,
multi-host (12 for RAID 7) connectivity, reliability, and
terabyte scalability. I can also post information about
how the big RAID 7 Sybase users handle their logs, if it's
of some interest to anyone beside our RAID 4 fan.