![]() Whereas, with Pure, when the power came back on, the system came back online immediately. We had to wait for IBM engineers to come and fix the issue. The management tool crashed and did not come back up. For example, we implemented a PoC with the IBM FlashSystem and a power outage occurred. We had to follow a long set of steps with more dependencies.Īfter a power outage, the storage devices from the other vendors did not always come back online. With legacy storage, there is also a procedure to bring it up. You have to power up the enclosures, then the controller, then the SAN environment, and then the server. You have to shut down the host, then the SAN switch, then the storage. With legacy storage, there is a shutdown procedure. If you want to power down the environment then you just unplug the power and that's it. It is also more stable and it is very easy to work with.įor example, there is no shutdown procedure. We switched because Pure storage is much easier to manage. We don't work with any of these vendors now. We have worked with solutions from HPE, IBM, and Hitachi. We spend time on the products to gain knowledge and experience with vendors. He's the one who engages with NetApp and relays information to the remote team. If we find anything, we immediately reach out to the architect. ![]() We check the array and identify any problems. The implementation, changes, configuration, and decision-making are all done from the headquarters.Īnd once it is implemented, the remote team logs in and does the navigation part. He takes and gives recommendations about which product to use, whereas we provide remote support from a different region altogether. The architect spends a lot of time on NetApp in his day-to-day activities, and he makes the changes. We have people working on the NetApp side but not regularly. Our team has minimal exposure to NetApp because our work involves a mix of vendors. The architect is the main person working with the NetApp products, and he does a deep dive before touching any product. However, my impression is that deploying AFF is straightforward. We have an on-site team that could better describe the installation and deployment. ![]() I do remote support, so I'm not working on the data center side. However, I'm on the backend side of things, and we are still looking for some relevant documents that can help us understand this aspect better. We haven't had enough time to look into that. If you asked me to rate AFF's effect on the flexibility of SAP and Oracle workloads, I would give it a seven out of 10. AFF is what we are using right now, but the team isn't fully utilizing it because our architect team is managing everything. There's no question about that. It has helped us run operations very quickly, saving us a lot of time. Before ONTAP, we used to spend a long time doing regular operations, but with the latest version of the tool, our day-to-day operations are much quicker and easier. NetApp's ONTAP data management software has also made tasks simpler for us. The whole team is thrilled to work on the product. It's more about how the team engages with it. If one person on a 10-person team isn't comfortable with the features, then that's where we have to improve our understanding and where the vendor can help us. As admins, we're always trying to reduce the complications on the technology end. We're looking at the product from a single perspective. AFF has simplified data management across SAN and NAS environments.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |