Sign in / up

back to article Pillar towers over rivals in best value storage

To get the most bang for your storage buck, you should buy a Pillar Data Axiom 600 - according to the Storage Performance Council (SPC). The SPC-1 benchmark measures the IOPS performance of storage arrays and the cost per IOPS, both in a standard way so that different vendors' storage products can be compared. Pillar Data has …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. dedmonst
    Pirate

    Cost comparisons are meaningless

    no-one ever pays list for their storage products anyway - so for all we know Pillar will only discount up to 40% whilst other vendors will discount up to 60%

    There's no substitute for doing your own homework and not relying on these meaningless comparisons. Does that make me agree a little with EMC? Good god what's wrong with me!

    0 0
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Naughty NetApp

    As you rightly mention, EMC will have nothing to do with the SPC, so therefore you shouldn't quote an SPC number for the CLARiiON.

    This was submitted by NetApp and can you really see NetApp configuring a CLARiiON correctly in a head-to-head test with a NetApp box, particularly when they want their FAS devices to look better?

    0 0
  3. Nate Amsden

    Wonder what it would cost

    It seems to be $570k for 288 disks ? (24 bricks x 12 disks per brick). If the 3PAR system costs 4x more, and had 1280 disks, that is more than 4x the number of disks, I wonder what the 3PAR system would cost with 288 disks by comparison.

    That would only require 2 controllers and 1 cabinet for a 3PAR T400. (my company recently purchased a T400 with 200x750GB SATA disks, and I used a smaller E200 at my last company - I do like their products). I think it might even be cheaper considering that the 1280 disk 3PAR has 8 controllers in it.

    Each controller pair in the T400 is rated at 80,000 IOPS(to disk), and 1.6 gigabytes/second of throughput(to disk).

    I suppose I could ask my sales guy but it's not that important.

    0 0
  4. Val Bercovici
    Go

    Welcome to the club

    I congratulate Pillar on publishing their first SPC-1 result.

    I'd like to encourage them (and others) to add even more value to their results by publishing with rich functionality like Thin Provisioning, Snapshots, Clones, etc... enabled next time. That will help customers get an even better approximation for the scalability of their desired solution.

    I'd also encourage all the SPC-1 skeptics to do some research and review the elaborate and transparent policies & procedures used by SPC members to publish. Of note is the independent audit of every report and right of any SPC member to force the publisher (usually a competitor) of a technically flawed or invalid report to revoke it.

    In light of all that, has anyone ever wondered why SPC member Dell never requested the CLARiiON report published by NetApp be revoked?

    -Val.

    Office of the CTO, NetApp

    http://blogs.netapp.com/exposed

    0 0
  5. Hemo The Magnificent
    Unhappy

    Make A Closer Examination

    I am excited to see a new company testing their products with the SPC benchmarks. From what I can see this is a valuable tool and appears to be the most neutral, repeatable benchmark that is available. I paid a visit to the Storage Performance web site and examined the Executive Summary for the Pillar Axiom test. I am disappointed The Register article did not point out the fact that Pillar's price, and hence the price/IOPS is based on a 35% discount while other tested systems like the IBM DS5300, cited in the article, have not used any discount. When you factor in the discount the Pillar product is not nearly as interesting.

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.