On Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:39:10 -0600, Larry Boyd <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Monday, March 23, 1998 7:20 AM, Chad Gilles wrote:
>> David A. Lethe wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > I'm curioius.... did they ever comment on such "minor" topics such as:
>> >  -> SSA performance vs FC-AL & Parallel SCSI?
>> >  -> SSA's ability to allow multiple drives to simultaneously do I/O
>> > across the same channel ... resulting in BETTER performance as drives
>> > are added??
>> >  -> SSA's added RELIABILITY/AVAILABILITY over parallel-SCSI based
>> >     subsystems.
>>
>> David,
>>
>> For my site and I would assume most other high-availability geared users
>> of the HP3000 (your main target for these drives I would assume), we
>> will not put our data on something HP has not OFFICIALLY blessed.
>>
>> Period, regardless of how reliable, fast ect. your drives are!
>
>In defense of David, let me say that while CSY has not "OFFICIALLY blessed"
>these new drives, we are in discussions with David.  Just an FYI of how
support
>for these types of equipment have occurred, let's use the EMC drives as an e
>xample.
>
>EMC produced and supplied the drives to several different machines prior to
CSY
>becoming involved.  EMC came to CSY and said something like "You guys should
>support these drives".  After several months of discussions within CSY with
EMC
>and with some of EMC customers, we agreed that it would be beneficial for our
>customers (This may sound like an easy conclusion, but remember that the price
>of these drives are "high" relative to what 3k customers generally consider
the
>price of a disk drive should be.  We really didn't know if our customers would
>accept the price, even if it was an excellent technical solution.)  Once we
>agreed to investigate the drives, we received at least one drive and began
>testing.  The investigation was to find out how much work would be required to
>provide support for these drives.  Our initial investigation indicated that
>there would be few, but major changes to both the EMC drive system and MPE.
> Once these were made and we were happy with the results, we agreed that the
>drives were valid for the 3k.
>
>When you think of the EMC "drives" or the SSA "drives", remember that these
are
>really computers, designed and built as complete disk subsystems.  They have
>their own operating systems, and can do many things that would be very
>difficult on a 3k with JBODs (this is one of their primary advantages).
>
>The EMC process took several months, and work from both CSY and EMC.  The SSA
>process is just beginning.  At CSY we really are interested in providing good
>options for our customers, and as we have said in the past, we are willing to
>work with third-parties who are interested in supplying options.  We are in
>discussions with customers who are interested in the SSA drive system, we have
>attempted (maybe with little success) to discuss the process with David, and
we
>believe there may be a real, viable solution here for our customers.  On the
>other hand, our initial fear is that MPE may have some corner cases that cause
>problems with the SSA drive systems, just as we found a few with the EMC
>drives.  That does not mean they cannot be over come, just like with EMC.
>
>Also, as with the EMC drives and other products from third-parties, even if
CSY
>acknowledges that the solution is valid for 3k customers, we do not directly
>support the EMC drives.  While we acknowledge the EMC drive, and may
>acknowledge the SSA drive, as valid for 3k customers, we don't "support" the
>EMC drives, EMC does.  This is neither an advantage or disadvantage for
>choosing a third-party product.  It's just a fact.
>
>Lastly, as Birket pointed out about the IPROF meeting, CSY is focusing on
>projects that continue the life of the 3k beyond the year 2000, and for many
>years after that.  It is very likely that the SSA drivers will help in this,
>and this is another reason we are interested in discussing the possibilities.
> On the other hand, as every company operates with few slack resources, it is
>likely that we are looking at an investigation for the first step and then a
>decision on the amount of work for the second (just like with EMC).  These
>don't take one or two days.
>
>The bottom line is that CSY is interested, and has begun discussing, the SSA
>solution.  We cannot, at this time, indicate whether the solution will be
>viable for 3k customers, or at what time in the future you can expect an
answer
>from HP.  David was at a little bit of a disadvantage, because he wasn't aware
>of how CSY functions (probably a little more conservative than some others he
>has worked with).  However, he is now in contact with a couple of people from
>CSY.
>
>We shouldn't jump to conclusions about the possible outcomes.  I can see at
>least three possibilities, and there are probably more.  One outcome is that
>CSY does the investigation and finds there are very few or no problems.  So in
>a very short time, 3k customers will have a second valid disk subsystem
>solution.  A second outcome is that we find problems which will take us longer
>to change, and therefore an answer will not be available for a year or more.
> The last possible outcome (which I don't think CSY or our customers would
>really like) is that the problems are too many or too large to attack at this
>time.  This would either put off any solution for several years (which would
be
>too late, IMHO), or would mean we could not acknowledge the solution as
viable.
> It's way too early in the process to guess what the outcome will be, and
let's
>wait a little, giving David and CSY time to investigate before jumping on
>either one.
>
>There are a lot of my opinions in this message, and don't join mine with CSY.
> However, one you can join is that CSY is open to the possibility of providing
>appropriate solutions and options for our customers, including third-party
>solutions.
>
>LB (with flame suit on)

Thanks Larry, for the unbiased response.  The bottom line is that CSY
is not only chartered with selling HP disk drives, BUT they are also
responsible for making HP3000 applications run as quickly and safely
as possible, at a fair price.

We (Compass, IBM, and HP customers running SSA today) know that under
the appropriate circumstances, SSA technology will do this. It has its
place just as JBOD, Nike, and EMC do.  I admit I might have rattled a
few cages within HP recently, but at least we are beginning to move
closer to some kind of "official" certification.

David A. Lethe
compass corporate systems
http://www.compass-corp.com