Comments by Stephen Foskett

Steve, this is awesome! I would love to add solar, but am in the same situation as Massachusetts here in Ohio - too much Winter! I'm also surrounded by trees...

My other idea was to go geothermal, but I haven't done that yet either. There's a good contractor out here, though!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Looks great! Much easier to comment now!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Note that you CAN change your batteries with the Mac plugged in and sleeping without losing anything in mode 0. But if you can plug in, why are you running on batteries, I suppose?

Anyone know of a way to tell the Mac to hibernate to disk just this once from the command line?

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Great point! The portrait mode song lists are ALWAYS album-only, a point that can easily be missed. I think I'll add this up above!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Thanks for the detailed comment, Chad! And for your excellent blog (if you don't already read Chad's Virtual Geek, you should! http://virtualgeek.typepad.com)

I'm concerned that people think the value of virtualization begins and ends with infrastructure savings (”condensation”) and thus are missing out on the real value - transforming the open systems data center!

Stephen

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Thanks for the kind words! I do sometimes wonder if the techies and insiders among us ever think about how the regular storage bods (nice!) go about their daily jobs. Consider how few use storage management software, are cross-trained in virtualization and networking, or even are exposed to alternative storage gear from vendors that aren't in their shops.

Regular storage folks face serious challenges just keeping the lights on, and the coming virtualization-enabled storage-pocalypse is not going to be an easy transition to make. Save yourselves! The sky is falling!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

I think you and I agree on this one, David! I recently wrote a similar opinion on my blog - iSCSI has a great niche and FCoE isn't going to kill it.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Nice to hear from you again, Joe!

You're right about these extras (and the Ad-Hoc problem, which bugs me on every WiFi device I have!)

I'm meaning to write a post about all the things that are wrong specifically with the iPod in the iPhone/Touch… Gotta add this!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Wow, Chuck, that's some quick bunking and debunking there! The Centera, HDS, and NetApp news just hit the wire today! Not leaving a lot of time for rumors to start, are you?

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

This is a really, really, REALLY good idea. Seriously, Wayne, I wish I'd thought of it! It's especially useful for all the “Linksys”, “Default”, “Wireless”, etc SSIDs out there. And the thing CAN tell the difference between networks using the MAC address - that's what the Skyhook location stuff in (Google) Maps already does!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Thanks right back at you, Mark, and to the rest at TechTarget for putting together such a high-quality product. I'm especially pleased to hear that Rich C will be part of the continued online effort. I look forward to seeing the first issue!

I remember Alex, of course, and wanted to point out to everyone that Christine Cignoli really did an equally nice job in the later issues. So many people who deserve praise!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Thanks, Jerome. I was looking for a press release or something at techtarget.com but didn't see anything yet. So it's officially official, then.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Yes again, Marc! What's the takeaway message? Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of a certain approach to solve a problem, the proof is in the pudding. Does it work? Does it continue to work as you use it?

I've seen some really BLAZING performance from EMC's CX series, for example. And I've also seen it suck. It depends on how you configure it and what you are looking for!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

I would bet that integrated management would be enough for most people, since that's what they interact with. I can imagine that, if replicating NFS uses totally different protocols than replicating a block volume, they might care about the underlying technology. But if you can make it “just work”, then why would they care about it unless they were techies arguing over whose is bigger?

I tend to be a realist. Whatever works (really works, not just sounds like it will) is always the best solution. And this is the point I was trying to make here: It doesn't really matter how unified you are or how emulated you are - it only matters if it's the right tool to get done what you need.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

I am not sure specifically about the SVC or Invista, but I do know that HDS promises that the next-generation USP-V will be a simple migration from the current USP-V: You dual-attach the LUNs, move them over, and retire the old one. I saw a presentation on just this topic on Tuesday!

I imagine that SVC clusters can be upgraded similarly, by adding new SVC nodes and pulling out the old ones.

EMC - Chuck? Barry? Mark?

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

1. « Previous
2. Page:
3. 1
4. 2
5. 3
6. 4
7. ...
8. 6
9. Next »