« EMC World 2015: A Humorous Interlude, Part 1 | Main | EMC World Day 1: vVNX (Project Liberty) and VNXe 3200 Update »

May 04, 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chris Gurley

Nice, thorough blast of new features! Definitely the biggest release so far.

I have a clarification question, if you don't mind. When you said, "Start with 5TB, and non-disruptively scale all the way up to 320TB (8x40TB X-bricks)", did you mean:

(1) that customers can now start with a starter brick of 5TB and add heterogeneous brick sizes after that to reach milestones on the way to 320TB?
(2) that customers can add larger bricks--say, 1 x 40TB--and migrate off of the original starter 5TB brick, in order to get the dense building block to reach 320TB?
(3) that people can add homogeneous brick sizes to reach points in that range (i.e. 5TB --> 40TB, 10TB --> 80TB, 20TB --> 160TB, and 40TB --> 320TB)?

Closing question: when can we get it? :) (apologies if it was somewhere in the midst of that crazy-full pool of data)

Thanks!
Chris

Mark Burgess

Hi Chad,

As per my comment on your VNX blog, what is the timescale for VVOLs support?

The fact that EMC owns most of VMware made me think they would have VVOLs support on all their arrays at vSphere 6 GA instead they seem a little late to the party.

Many thank
Mark

Jonathan Kowall

This is so cool. XtremIO has hit on every commitment and continues lead the pack. Congrats to the whole team!

Chet Walters

It was my understanding that the 5TB "starter" brick cannot join a cluster. IE, it can be upgraded to the 10TB brick, but that brick cannot be added with another 10TB brick to form a 20TB cluster.

Fact or fiction?

Aran Hoffmann

@Chris and Chet
All X-Bricks in a cluster must be the same model. So if you start with a 10TB Starter (5TB) then you can upgrade that non-disruptively to 10TB. Then once you are on 4.0 code you can non-disruptively upgrade that single 10TB X-Brick cluster to dual 10TB X-Bricks in the cluster.

As far as supported limits, the 10TB X-Bricks can only scale up to 4 X-Bricks in the cluster. The 20TB and 40TB X-Bricks can scale up to 8 X-Bricks in the cluster with the 4.0 code.

LeRoi

Nice rivew entry

Chad Sakac

@Chris @Chet - thanks for the Q - it was answered by @Aran - it's a good clarification. Thank you Aran!

@Jonathan - I'm glad you're pumped! There's always more to do - but yes, an incredibly compelling solution just got better!

Chad Sakac

@Mark - support for the VVOLs on XtremIO will arrive in 2016 (see vVNX post for the answer there). I do think we're a little behind, yes - and the teams are working on it furiously. What I'm seeing is that 2015 is the year of "trying on" VVOLs - and with VVOL 2.0 support arrives for remote replication support in the VASA API. This means that while we ARE behind (acknowledged!) - our commitment to be there across the portfolio remains solid.

We were there from the get go, and furiously in sync (as you can see from the years of demos at VMworlds past), but as we got to the finish line for the vSphere 6 release - our release schedules just didn't match up (and VVOL support is, in my view a major release).

It's not a pretty situation, but we are on it.

Will

Came across this post while doing some research. Claiming no SPOF is a little misleading compared to some of the competition, isn't it? SPOF has come to mean more than just have a single backup for something. Also, a dual drive redundancy (RAID6 essentially) isn't much of a benefit when comparing to the competition either I think. Cloud based storage is becoming the norm for business with requirements that go beyond a fast RAID platform, and I'm just not sure I see the differentiators with xtremIO still.

You guys are definitely working hard to get out a product that the EMC sales team is selling, there is no doubt about that. EMC sales practices and results really have no bearing on how well a product performs, though. The argument being that even if an organization selects the best product to fit their needs, it is EMC sales policy to "not be undersold" simply to get market share. Is it human nature to still select the best thing, even if it has now become more expensive? Or do the majority of people succumb to "the biggest discount" effect?

Approve this comment or not, it's your purview, but I think these are valid devil's advocate points that need to be considered by those taking a look. There is something to be said for either option in that decision.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

  • BlogWithIntegrity.com

Disclaimer

  • The opinions expressed here are my personal opinions. Content published here is not read or approved in advance by Dell Technologies and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Dell Technologies or any part of Dell Technologies. This is my blog, it is not an Dell Technologies blog.