« Los problemas del Backup con VMWare | Main | Snapshots inesperados con VMWare VCB »

March 05, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Everything in this world is based on your assumptions.
The system defaults are set that way to eliminate risk - not for peak performance or efficiency - to achieve that requires admin decisions and monitoring which when done - As we have on hundreds of systems - removes the issues you refer to.
Second assumption - that teiring has a fixed value - it does not, it is relative - and therefore there are some environments where it is of lesser value, and thus not as desirable. There are also alternate options which may be more desirable.
I for one prefer a storage landscape where we have a number of storage players which actively seek to travel different design strategies, as in that way I am able to choose those that fit my requirements for each different client.
All journeys are different if you start and end in different places.

Juan Jose Palacios

Thanks for your comment, Adriaan.

I definately agree on the different vendor issue, this reflect many ways to solve different issues, thus permitting evolution. This moves us forward.

I must state, in many aspects, I have enjoyed DOT. And I still enjoy it ;)

But my criticism comes as an answer to a precise statement "...not so dependent on tiers...".

Under my point of view, this doesn't reflect a real situation, so I believe is a misleading comment.

Tiering, as I stated, is a feature. And in many cases is a strategy (when you decide to use that feature as a policy mainstream). Allright, use it just if you need it. That's all it takes.

But, honestly, I do not believe this can be called dependency.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2008
My Photo

TypePad Profile

Get updates on my activity. Follow me on my Profile.

Chuck's Blog

the storage anarchist

Storagebod's Blog