SUMMARY: Auspex file servers - experiences?

From: Steve Ozoa (
Date: Mon Nov 01 1993 - 12:15:49 CST

My original question was:

>As our main 690MP file server is close to maxed out on disks, and our disk
>space requirements are growing rapidly, we're starting to look at adding an
>Auspex file server to our network. This would replace one or more 690MP's
>serving 30-40 workstations on two subnets. I'd like to find out what
>experiences others have had with these boxes. Specifically,
>1. What kind of file servers did it replace, and did you see a significant
>increase in performance after adding the Auspex?
>2. Any administration hassles? They run SunOS, but were there any hidden
>3. Has the Auspex been reliable?
>4. Any problems dealing with Auspex as a company? Did they deliver what they
>promised, or fail to follow through on commitments?
>5. Has anyone tried using an Auspex box as a Novell fileserver? (I haven't
>yet asked Auspex if this is possible, it's an issue that came up later).
>6. If you looked at Auspex, and decided against them, why?
>7. What alternative products are available?
>8. Anything else anyone wants to say about them.
>Thanks in advance for your help. I'll summarize if there's interest.
>Steve Ozoa
>Atmel Corporation


1. Not many specific answers to this one. The answers that did come were:
4/75 & 4/65, two Sun4/490's, 2 Sun3/260's, and a Solbourne 5e/900. Even less
word on performance before and after, but good performance is reported with
well over a hundred clients on several subnets.

2. No major problems. It's SunOS 4.1.1, with a few hardware-specific changes,
which are apparently well documented.

3. One or two problems, most of which were resolved, otherwise solid

4. This one was the most divided. Most agreed that Auspex goes all-out to
make sure the customer is satisfied, but in some cases that seemed to mutate
into a hard-sell attitude, and a position of 'our product is best, why consider
anything else?'. Our own experience so far is positive. The auspex
representative actively encouraged us to go out and compare, even offering
contacts with other customers. They're also monitoring our network and cpu
loads to determine the best configuration.

5. It can't be done (yet).

6. Only a couple of responses here. Cost seems to be the main reason for
rejecting Auspex.

7. Main contenders are Sun's SparcCenter 2000, SparcServer 1000, and
SparcCluster, which apparently have comparable performance.

8. Mostly comments on the high price, and that Auspex wants you to use their
disks, not third-party. Someone also mentioned the auspex mailing list, which
I hadn't known about. Contact for details.

We've just received information from our Sun sales rep regarding the
SparcCluster. We're still considering, but the SparcCluster looks better so
far. If anyone wants to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me
via email.

Thanks to:

and anyone I forgot to mention.

Steve Ozoa
Atmel Corporation

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:08:27 CDT