FcoE adpotion

According to IDC FCoE adoption will be about 1% in two years time.

Unless your goal is to be a Cisco only shop there are no reasons for switching to an expensive, complex and under performing technology. A lot of people who can operate a calculator knows that.

One selects technology for a 5 year time frame, the technology that will certainly exist in 5 years time is FC.

FCoE not so sure.

@kebabbert

Kebabert wrote:

"Apparently you IBM supporters are very uncortomble reading this article where it says that AIX will soon be killed."

Soon? Who was a lying FUDer again?

Don't you stop and think when no one supports your outrageous lies and repeated ramblings?

When even the most die hard SUN fan and Oracle employee writes the following to you:

"BTW: Please stop talking about this "IBM stops AIX" thing"

That is diplomatic speak for "Please shut your insane mouth Kebabbert. You are an emabarrassment for all things SUN and Oracle".

http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/7363-Result-of-the-How-long-do-you-wait-before-Solaris-11-gets-on-your-prod-systems.html#c224633

Really?

#However, rotating a tape through daily/weekyl backups will kill a tape in 10-30 jobs

I obviously have no knowledge of how you are handling your tapes but these numbers are nowhere near my or others experience nor the specifications for LTO. Frankly they seem absurd.

#$30 per tape vs $100-150 for the same capacity disk,

Since this is EMC related I challenge you to get a quote from EMC for mid-range disk(VNX) that is even in the same ballpark as this number. That is SATA in a chassis with the necessary software and support.

Your calculations also assume using a very small tape library(80 slots) where the drive/slot ratio is quite high. For large librarys slot cost is down to maybe one tenth compared to a small library and the number of tape drives needed per slot is many times lower. So your analysis does not hold for any medium to large business where tape really shines. However if you restrict your analysis to small time operations we are in agreement.

At last your tape-only scenario is nowhere near any real world setups. Most of our backup jobs touches disk even if 90% of the capacity is on tape. So those numbers of yours for concurrent backup jobs seems far fetched. I hear no one arguing that one should ONLY use tape.

Lastly I suspect that your design or your choice of backup software restricts you in using tape optimally.

Agree with James

A relevant example is comparing a large TS3500 holding an appropriate number of LTO4-drives with the same capacity of SATA from mid-range disk systems(HDS AMS or EMC VNX).

Based on quotes the cost/TB for tape is less than 20% of the cost of disk. That is excluding any compression, the space savings with tape and the huge savings in power/cooling.

Of course this calculation does not hold for small setups because the initial cost of tape is quite high. But as the environment grows I have seen customers stuck in a corner with their disk-only backup regretting that they did not plan for a tape solution from day one. And the way to plan for that is choosing the right type of backup software. The type which lets you in an optimal way exploit the strengths of both disk and tape.

eva

"2.5billion dollar acquisition to fill an arguably non-existent gap ?"

What? The gap between EVA and the OEMed HDS USP/VSP is huge. In fact I would guess most mid-range systems from other vendors would fit right in there. With room to spare.

EVA is an entry level system, with entry level reliability, entry level performance and entry level functionality. It is cheap and you get what you pay for.