Scribd
Upload
1K views5 pages

NetApp Vs EMC

The document compares the NetApp FAS and EMC Celerra storage systems. It finds that NetApp offers higher performance and lower TCO through features like FlexVol, RAID-DP, and efficient snapshots. EMC strengths include clustering and unified management, but it has weaknesses in performance, managing multiple operating systems, and limited SSD capabilities. The document recommends NetApp for highest performance, lowest TCO, simplest management, and high reliability.

Uploaded by

Vikram Singh
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views5 pages

NetApp Vs EMC

The document compares the NetApp FAS and EMC Celerra storage systems. It finds that NetApp offers higher performance and lower TCO through features like FlexVol, RAID-DP, and efficient snapshots. EMC strengths include clustering and unified management, but it has weaknesses in performance, managing multiple operating systems, and limited SSD capabilities. The document recommends NetApp for highest performance, lowest TCO, simplest management, and high reliability.

Uploaded by

Vikram Singh
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

EMC Celerra NS Series Vs.

Netapp FAS Series

Spec Comparison
Specifications NetApp FAS/V-Series EMC Celerra NS Series
DART
Operating
Data ONTAP
System (Data Access in Real
Time)
File System WAFL UxFS
Simple
Management & Yes Yes1[1]
Installation
High
Performance Yes No2[2]
RAID 6
Snapshots in
Yes Yes
base system
Rapid recovery
SnapRestore SnapSure
from Snapshots
Flexible Volumes FlexVol Celerra AVM3[3]
Integrated
FlexClone No
Cloning
Workload
FlexShare No
Prioritization
Virtualized
MultiStore Virtual Data Movers
Partitions
Celerra Replicator /
Mirroring SnapMirror
MirrorView4[4]
Max. systems in
2 2-85[5]
a cluster

1[1] Celerra Unisphere delivers not all functionality

2[2] EMC delivers RAID 6 but with performance penalties

3[3] Without the ability to shrink volumes

4[4] Celerra Replicator for NAS/iSCSI, MirrorView for FC/iSCSI

5[5] NS-120 w/ 2 Data Mover, NS-480 up to 4, NS-960 up to 8. One Data Mover is passive for failover
Competitive Alignment
NetApp EMC
FAS2040
NS-120
FAS2050
FAS3140
NS-480
FAS3160
FAS3170
NS-960
FAS60×0

Feature Comparison
Feature Notes
Efficiency NetApp: High-performance RAID DP with
industry leading space efficiency.

EMC: Use of standard RAID 10 or 5 with


performance and capacity limits.
EMC Competitive Analysis

Overview

 Recognized brand, large installed base


 >50% of sales are through channel and OEMs, including Dell and Fujitsu-Siemens
 40% revenue increase YoY

Strengths

 N+1 clustering for high availability


 “All-in-one” NAS, iSCSI, and Fibre Channel connectivity
 File-level deduplication
 File-level retention (FLR), similar to SnapLock Enterprise
 Thin Provisioning with Automated Volume Manager
 Fully Automatic Storage Tiering (FAST) with FileMover Appliance for files
 Unified Management GUI with Celerra Unisphere
 Disk spin down

Weaknesses

 At least two operating systems to manage


 DART on Celerra
 FLARE on CLARiiON
 RedHat Linux on Celerra Control Station
 No true Unified Storage
 Weak performance with Out-of-the-box install
 20% less performance with RAID-6 compared to RAID-5
 Highest Availability (5×9s) only for CLARiiON
 Async replication process for NAS with non-transparent failover
 Deduplication not supported on iSCSI and with VMware
 CLARiiON virtually provisioned LUNs are not supported and cannot be provisioned to
Celerra
 Limited SSD drive capability (15 per NS-120/NS-480, 30 per NS-960)
 With FLR-C (Compliance) a CLARiiON admin can still delete the underlying LUN

Why NetApp vs. EMC

 Highest performance in per-node throughput and overall response time


 Highly efficient snapshots
 FAS/V-Series exceeds NS performance as reported via third-party specSFS
benchmark results
 Lower total cost of ownership
 IDC Storage Tracker reports NetApp NAS cost less than EMC NAS quarterly and
YoY
 FlexVol and RAID-DP greatly increases utilization
 Simple upgrade path
 More cost-effective mirroring and disaster recovery
 Simplest to manage
 One management interface
 Less equipment to manage
 Less software to configure
 Highly reliable and available
 FAS/V-Series meets and exceeds Five 9’s availability validated by IDC report
 RAID-DP provides tolerance to multiple simultaneous disk failures without
performance penalities commonly found in competitor RAID 6 deployments
 Choice of FAS/V-Series asynchorous, synchronous or semi-synchronous
mirroring versus NS asynchronous approach for file replication
 Easily, quickly recover from errors and disasters
 No single point of failure vs EMC NS Control Station or active/active controller
configurations
 NetApp Cloud, NDDC and ITaaS provides non-disruptive availability of business data
and repeatable processes
 Muitlstore provides secure and transparent pools of storage, with Lifetime Key
management with Decru
 Operations, Protection and Provisioing Managers provide seamless cloud-
enabled automated provisioining and management
 SANScreen provides superior capacity management and chargeback
 Data Motion enables movement of storage pools non-disruptively

Questions To Ask

Storage Utilization

· What level of thin provisioning does EMC NS provide?

· How does EMC’s double parity RAID 6 perform?

· How much capacity does EMC need for SnapClone?

Disaster Recovery

· Should I use SnapSure or SnapView?

· How do you do backup and recovery from snapshots?

Performance

· Does Celerra do workload prioritization like FlexShare?

· How many Snapshots can I take without any performance loss?

Reliability & Availability


· What level of availability can I expect from EMC NS and what third-party has validated
this? Four 9’s? Five 9’s? Six 9’s?

· How do you protect against a double disk failure while ensuring performance? Can you
do it without mirroring the RAID groups?

Archival and Compliance (if EMC proposes Celerra plus Centera)

· Wouldn’t it make sense to include a CAS/compliance option on existing storage


platforms (like NetApp does with SnapLock)?

· How many dissimilar management interfaces and software are required?

Enterprise-ready requirements

· What is your strategy to support automatic disaster recovery?

Support

· How will you support my 24×7 production environment – go through partners that
support other vendors?

You might also like