EMC vs XP vs NetApp?

[Matt Szary]

I'm setting up a new production environment for my company with a 4-node ServiceGuard cluster on 2xN and 2xL with the possibility of adding another N at a future point. Basically we have the architecture determined except for the storage part. We'll be running applications with Progress and Oracle backends. We'll need at least 4TB capacity in the frame. The options I've been looking at are an EMC 8430 frame, an HP XP-series frame, an HP VA-7100 frame or a NetApp Filer.
Each of them (besides the netapp) would be connected via FC, with the NetApp being Gigabit.

I realize this is somewhat comparing apples to oranges, but if someone has experience with throughput, clustering, reliability, management, and overall performance between these, I'd be interested to hear your input. I've worked with EMC in the past and am leaning towards EMC, but the HP offerings seem decent and I havent worked with a NetApp filer (or any NAS) really before, but the idea intruiges me. The storage may need to attach NT servers to at a later point.

I'd appreciate anyone's input and experiences.
Thanks.

[Eric Sorensen_1]

Hello Matt,

You might find this previous discussion interesting:

http://forums.itrc.hp.com/cm/QuestionAnswer/1,1150,0x0367dfe5920fd5118fef0090279cd0f9,00.html

[Duncan Edmonstone]

If the NetApp solution is based around NFS/SAMBA, I'd be very carefull. Oracle won't (or at least didn't last time I asked) support a database with datafiles on NFS file systems, as NFS doesn't support non-deferred writes.

[Bill McNAMARA_1]

go for the XP or the EMC. The XP comes in a 48 disk fibre config that is a good entry into the XP line... although not scalable beyond 48.

The XP is more mature than the VA so I'd certainly choose that.

Later,
Bill

[Matt Szary]

Apparently, NetApp says that their Filers are approved by Oracle and Progress for running their databases over.

[Paul R. Dittrich]

Last time I did a detailed comparison ('99) EMC still had a single point of failure (a single copy of the microcode) where the XP256 array had none. That was the deciding factor for us.

HTH,
Paul

[Vincent Fleming · Accepted solution]

I would run away from the NetApp with all my might. Yes, it's "certified" with Oracle, but if you ask anyone at Oracle if they would actually use one, they would laugh.

NAS is really, really, really slow for databases. I am absolutely certain that you would be extremely unhappy with the performance of a NetApp filer (or *any* NAS box, including HP's) with Oracle.

Now, for direct-attached or SAN storage, I'd recommend the XP or EMC, since you seem to have the money for it. The VA series is a great little box at a great little price, but it just isn't in the same class as XPs and EMCs.

As for the XP and EMC, if you want the latest technology, get the XP; if you're happy with paying more for older technology, buy an EMC. (EMC hasn't updated their technology in over 4 years!) The XP is Fibre thru-and-thru, but the EMC still uses SCSI drives!

Anyway, They both meet your needs, from the sounds of it.

Good luck

[Matt Brookes]

Yes!

Not only are NetApp systems certified and supported for Oracle [ http://www.netapp.com/partners/oracle/oscp.html ]
(and Sybase & DB2 and Ingress and so on), Oracle use them themselves to run thier business: [ http://www.netapp.com/news/press/2000/news_rel_20001206.html ]

Yes they're as fast as local disk, possibly faster in certain cicumstances.
Here's what Oracle say: [ http://www.netapp.com/partners/oracle/quotes.html ]

In addition, storing data on Filers offers many other advantages, just for example the ability to take multiple instant online copies of the database (Snapshots) and restore to a previous state in seconds, online filesystem expansion and so on.

From a business perspective, not only is the capital cost typically lower, but the three year TCO is typically 75% less than alternative solutions: [ http://www.netapp.com/tech_library/ftp/3102.pdf ]

It's well worth a look!

Matt.

[Krishna Prasad]

Just my two sense....

I would go with the EMC for a database.

Also, on the comment the EMC is older then the XP256. I would have to ask then why did HP go to EMC first, and ask if they could put the HP logo on EMC machines. EMC said "NO", so HP went to company number two to get a machine.

So, hence the XP256 is HP's second choice.

[Chuck Ciesinski]

Matt,

Although I am very late in posting an answer, I'd like to recommend you post decision and finding to the group here.
Additionally, I'd like to recommend you post the findings to the listserver
emc@interex.org. That list is
made up of EMC customers, EMC and HP engineers, and a number of Interex members.

Chuck Ciesinski