The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Oracle to NetApp: 'I'm a faster, cheaper storage lover'

Take a look at what my box can do, baby

SaaS data loss: The problem you didn’t know you had

OpenWorld Oracle says it has scored an SPC-1 benchmark win over NetApp; its ZFS storage box delivers twice the SPC-1 speed of a NetApp array for less than half the cost.

The ZFS 7420 recorded 137,066 SPC-1 IOPS at a cost of $2.99/IOPS. Oracle chose to contrast this with a NetApp 3270A result of 68,035 SPC-1 IOPS at a cost of $7.48/IOPS.

In absolute terms these are slow SPC-1 boxes. The top scorer is a TMS RamSan-630 solid state array that notched up 400,503.26 SPC-1 IOPS at a cost of $1.05/IOPS.

Coincidentally Huawei Symantec has announced a couple of SPC-1 results too. Its Oceanspace S6800T clocked 150,061 SPC-1 IOPS at $3.08/IOPS and the smaller S5600T did 102,471.66 IOPS at $2.73 per IOPS. These bracket the ZFS 7420 result but not its cost/IOPS.

NetApp seems to have abandoned the SPC-1 benchmark recently. ®

Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner

Latest Comments

Understanding how to read the SPC-1 submissions is important...

Hi all, Dimitris from NetApp here (www.recoverymonkey.org).

A few facts:

1. Like most other manufacturers, Oracle used RAID10 for the submission, and 2.5 times the number of drives NetApp used (and tons more cache and SSD etc etc but I digress).

2. The Oracle prices included a discount

3. NetApp always uses RAID-DP (protection equivalent to RAID6, meaning better than RAID10). Good space efficiency and best protection.

4. Apples-to-apples would be if Oracle used RAIDZ2 (similar protection to RAID6 and RAID-DP).

5. In the write-heavy SPC-1 benchmark (over 60% writes for the person that asked before), RAID6 behaves a LOT slower than RAID10. Which explains why most vendors don't choose to show those results.

6. The NetApp submission is a midrange controller - we have 3 (three) boxes progressively faster than the one in the SPC-1 submission... :)

But I admit, the headline is attention-grabbing.

Thx

D

0
0
Anonymous Coward

If you just wanted a box that could perform raw grunt then you wouldn't choose NetApp. But what if you wanted some data protection? Replication? Storage efficiency? Scale-out?

It all adds up when you have to stick other boxes and other bits of software all over the show.

0
0

There's another problem....

You have to buy these boxes from Oracle. Not that they're eeevil or anything but.....

0
0

More from The Register

SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
 breaking news
You don't need phone lines or cable for ANYTHING, says Dish
The satellite-dish man can sort you out with phone and broadband over the air too
 breaking news
What's HP got under wraps? Looks awfully flash and tape shaped
What happens in Vegas won't stay there - we've got the details
AMD lifts the veil on Opteron, ARM chip plans for 2014
Not much action going on in 2013, though
Microsoft borks botnet takedown in Citadel snafu
Stupid Redmond kicked over our honeypots, wail white hats
IBM's $1bn layoffs latest: Now axe swings in US, Canada - reports
Union claims 121 storage bods canned after dismal sales
NetApp musters muscular cluster bluster for ONTAP busters
Storage array OS overhauled to juggle more nodes, go down on you, er, less
HP adds 'Haswell' Xeon E3s to entry ProLiant servers
Gussies up MicroServer for SMBs, adds baby switches