The Pissing Match continues….

I detailed the rally between Netapp and EMC in a previous post that I will recap here…

Netapp:  sponsored a report by Veritest in which NetApp’s performance was far greater then that of the Clariion

Chuck Hollis (EMC): responded on his blog to dispell the claims and included a link to EMC’s own test of the same thing

Chuck Hollis (EMC): ensure’s his point is clear in a follow up to his first post

Chris Evans: points out Netapp’s response to EMC where NetApp is again purported to have better performance over EMC

Now instead of EMC coming out with further guidance, Stephen Daniel and Chris Lemmons over at Netapp has updated their paper titled “Cooking the Numbers” with some corrections (notice the date of today)….I don’t have access to the original document to see what was changed, so you will have to judge for yourself (there is no statement in the doc and none that I could find on their site regarding what had changed….)

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The Pissing Match continues….”

  1. Chris M Evans Says:

    Josh, thanks for the attention and the update on this. I have two comments;

    1. We need an apples for apples comparison here. Both the EMC and Netapp equipment can be shown to be useful in certain workloads and to be beating the competition. Personally, if I had a product, I’d be aiming to portray it in the best light. If I believed I produced the best product I wouldn’t care who analysed it, as it would always show up best.
    2. Let’s create a set of user validated standards which test these kind of subsystems in accepted data profiles – a few examples; filer access; sequential write, exchange etc etc. Let me have the hardware and I’ll test it against some standards we can all accept. Hell, I’d almost agree to Toigo helping to set the standards for us… :-)

  2. joshmaher Says:

    I completely agree Chris!

    It would certainly reduce the impact of the bickering and FUD. The problem is getting an agreeable set of standards AND an agreeable point of the test. Most of the tests that are released aren’t broadly relevant which is a bit of a shame; however, it leaves the door wide open for mis-interpretation and mis-understandings.

    Now I don’t have any say in this…Chuck (http://chucksblog.typepad.com/chucks_blog/2006/12/netapp_bad_mark.html) on the other hand has a little more weight in the company and shares at least part of our viewpoint (don’t lie in your marketing material)…now if that means don’t lie and share all the information or if that means something else I don’t know…..

    Perhaps defining a standard set of tests first would be a step in the right direction

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: