Re: Pure Storage opinions

The thread to which I responded began with a specific question and the subject line of "Clone tool", and that thread is still active. In that thread, I responded with four sentences and 77 words. My response was specific for the question asked, it was factual, and it was concise.

Your comments about "pure and unadulterated Delphix marketing" are nonsense. If I choose to respond about how a product can help a situation, then I will do so. If you want to also inform everyone about another product and it's capabilities, then have at it.

But attempting to control the conversation by labeling responses with which you disagree as "marketing" (or any other pejorative) is nonsense. We've all got eyes and brains and can decide that for ourselves. If you disagree, then rebut with facts, not opinions. Each person on the list can decide what is right, wrong, or drivel.

You've decided for yourself and that's fine, but you won't deny others their own decision.

-Tim

On 4/23/16 12:22, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> This is not a fight, I am just objecting to the pure and unadulterated
> Dephix marketing on this list. This comes and goes in waves. As far
> as the difference between Commvault and Delphix goes, both products
> do database cloning, both by using storage snapshot technology.
> Commvault doesn't do any masking of the data, but as far as cloning
> goes, the two products do overlap. And with the modern technology,
> lines between "backups" and "clones" have been more than blurred.
> Reading this group, my impression was that Delphix is web-scale, just
> like in the famous YT clip "mongodb is web scake". I usually do not
> engage in marketing on this list, this "fight" is just a reaction to a
> bit too much of a marketing on this group.
> Regards
>
> On 4/23/2016 12:13 PM, Andrew Kerber wrote:
>> I don't have a dog in this fight, but frankly Commvault and Delphix
>> are two different solutions to two different problems. I know of
>> several places that use both. Commvault is a backup solution, Delphix
>> is a cloning and masking solution.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Tim Gorman <tim_at_evdbt.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure why Delphix got dragged into this thread, but I'll be your
>>> huckleberry...
>>>
>>> Commvault is indeed a big old company and Delphix only started in
>>> 2008, but it's questionable where the advantage lies.
>>>
>>> New companies are created either because bigger older companies have
>>> left a sizable gap or because technology evolves and does things
>>> better, leapfrogging older technology. So, while bigger older
>>> companies improve incrementally, new companies either exploit the
>>> gap, or leapfrog with the new technology, or both. If it works, the
>>> older companies fade. If it doesn't, the newer companies die.
>>>
>>> So I guess we'll see how it plays out.
>>>
>>> Either way, it's not going to be decided on this email list. So
>>> peace, and have a nice weekend.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/23/16 00:11, Mladen Gogala wrote:
>>>> Well, this list has turned into a Sears, Roebuck & Delphix catalog.
>>>> I wanted to add Commvault to the mix, for several reasons:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Commvault is an order of magnitude larger than Delphix,
>>>> measuring both by revenue and the number of customers. We have
>>>> many more customers and are much better known. Reading this
>>>> list, one would be tempted to conclude exactly the opposite.
>>>> 2. Commvault is an Oracle platinum partner. So is Delphix.
>>>> 3. Commvault is much older company than Delphix, with the history
>>>> reaching to the good, old Ma Bell and USL.
>>>> 4. Delphix is not a full-fledged backup suite which you can use to
>>>> archive your mailboxes in Exchange or Domino. Delphix is a
>>>> database specialist. In addition to Delphix, a traditional
>>>> backup suite is also needed.
>>>>
>>>> So, by following this group, one could conclude that Delphix is the
>>>> dominant juggernaut and Commvault a tiny upstart fighting for its
>>>> place under the sun. That perception is very wrong and I did my
>>>> best to rectify it. And yes, I am a Commvault employee. No big
>>>> secrets there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/23/2016 12:29 AM, David Green wrote:
>>>>> I see what you did there. Tsk tak
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 2016, at 9:05 PM, Mladen Gogala
>>>>> <gogala.mladen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that the original poster asked about the Pure
>>>>>> storage, not HDS, XtremIO,3Par or NetApp. Am I in the wrong
>>>>>> mailing list? This looks like the storage salespeople convention.
>>>>>> Are there any snacks and T-Shirts? Having said that, I have
>>>>>> nothing against Hitachi, Dell, HP or NetApp. As a consultant for
>>>>>> a backup vendor, I encountered all of them. While I was a DBA, I
>>>>>> was annoying the heck of storage sales people by requesting demos
>>>>>> using the local application mix and asking questions about IOPS.
>>>>>> My guess is that the original poster will have to do the same.
>>>>>> Whatever he decides, Commvault can back it up and can integrate
>>>>>> with the storage snapshots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/21/2016 03:46 AM, Ls Cheng wrote:
>>>>>>> I have a customer who uses HDS VSP G1000, All-Flash and the
>>>>>>> latency is great, average 0.2ms for log parallel writes and
>>>>>>> 0.3ms for log file sync, 0.6ms for db sequential/scattered read.
>>>>>>> The databases is a 4 nodes RAC, 14000 IOPS where average 9000 is
>>>>>>> redo log writes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Thump CC
>>>>>>> <thump_at_cosmiccooler.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Along with the new kid on the block(D5) it’s also worth
>>>>>>> looking at ExtremIO and 3PAR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Apr 20, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Mladen Gogala
>>>>>>> <gogala.mladen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On 04/20/2016 03:27 PM, Jeff Chirco wrote:
>>>>>>> >> Anyone use or used Pure Storage for your database
>>>>>>> storage? We currently have NetApp and it is coming on a
>>>>>>> hardware refresh so we are looking around. We've looked at
>>>>>>> the ZFS which seems really nice, a little more expensive
>>>>>>> than we though but great for Oracle database. Now my system
>>>>>>> admins are looking at Pure Storage as a possibility as well.
>>>>>>> From what I read it seems like a all flash system and
>>>>>>> apparently hardware freshes are built into the support
>>>>>>> contract. Let me know if you have any onions.
>>>>>>> >> Currently we are running Oracle on Windows Server 2008r2
>>>>>>> with 11.2.0.4 but moving all over to Oracle Linux and
>>>>>>> eventually 12c.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>>>> >> Jeff
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Hi Jeff!
>>>>>>> > I don't have any onions, but I can offer some scallions.
>>>>>>> As a consultant working for a backup vendor, I have
>>>>>>> encountered Pure several times and all the customers that I
>>>>>>> know of are very happy. Pure is very fast and very reliable.
>>>>>>> Administration interface is fairly intuitive and it supports
>>>>>>> everything that other storage support.
>>>>>>> > Regards
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > Mladen Gogala
>>>>>>> > Oracle DBA
>>>>>>> > http://mgogala.freehostia.com
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mladen Gogala
>>>>>> Oracle DBA
>>>>>> http://mgogala.freehostia.com
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Mladen Gogala
>>>> Oracle Consultant
>>>> http://mgogala.freehostia.com
>>>>
>>>> DISCLAIMER: I am solely responsible for any opinion expressed in this email
>>>
>
> --
> --
> Mladen Gogala
> Oracle Consultant
> http://mgogala.freehostia.com
>
> DISCLAIMER: I am solely responsible for any opinion expressed in this email

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l