SUMMARY: Auspex vs. Disk Array

From: Sam Don (
Date: Fri Feb 25 2000 - 16:56:11 CST

Dieter Gobbers <>

Indicated preference of Auspex:

- Performance:
- it's simplier to manage one machine than two (or even more)
- the filesystem is much faster the ufs/ODS and has features such as
  support for journaling and resizing partitions
- if you need CIFS than Auspex has the best performance in the market
- you can replace the NT domaincontroller with the Auspex
- management gui included
- report tools included
- filesystem repairs when machine is online
- ready to operate in a few hours (calculate how long it would take to
  get a two sun system running in a failsave configuration - DAYS!)

"Seth Rothenberg" <>

A few Sun choices:
A3500 - two control modules, two trays
A3500FC - two control modules, two trays
A5200 - two arrays
T300 - two arrays (T300 is aka Purple, & is expected out of Beta in

The A3500 is a BIG solution, requires a Sun Cabinet.
The A5200 has fibre, expandable, managed through software, and is small...
but it has no controller (Cache)
Purple is a Fibre array like the A5200, but Purple has a Cache like the

Purple holds 9 disks. I think it is all Fibre.
A3500 holds 12 disks per tray. Trays connect via F/W SCSI
A5200 holds 22 disks per array. Disks connect via 100Mb/s Fibre
All disks are 10,000 RPM

Maybe Sun's A3500 with 18GB or 36GB disks. The "normal" config holds 60
disks, can be hooked up in a fault-tolerant manner.

They also have a F/C front end which is not quite as fault-tolerant right

They are working on moving to fibre, though. That gets you 1080 GB in one
cabinet. I don't know how many 36GB disks it supports.

Get Your Private, Free Email at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:14:03 CDT