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@xxxxxxxxx> 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:
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.
Commvault is an Oracle platinum partner. So is Delphix.
Commvault is much older company than Delphix, with the history reaching to
the good, old Ma Bell and USL.
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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxx>
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
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//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
