|
Are there any knowledgeable goons here that would care to comment on an HDS AMS 2500 vs an IBM DS5300? We're looking at around 100Tb with a mix of FC/SAS and SATA drives, but will need to expand that to +200Tb over the next couple of years. HDS are claiming their new internal SAS architecture is all the rage; IBM are basically saying HDS are full of poo poo and their stuff is way cooler. The IBM kit is about 10-15% more expensive but supposedly faster, so they tell me. On the other hand, we've been previously using HDS for many years and had no major problems, it's all worked very well and their support has been excellent. While we have plenty of IBM servers we have never used or bought anything from their storage range. For this project the "fast" drives (FC or SATA) would be used for VMWare for Exchange, AD, etc while the SATA disks would be used for archiving of medical records. Can anyone give any advice or reasons why it might be worth (or not) spending the extra $s on the IBM?
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2009 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:04 |
|