<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Storage Wisdom!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com</link>
	<description>Random Array of Incoherent Drivel</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:45:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The truth about IBM Storwize v7000 IP replication by gokhan</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=223&#038;cpage=1#comment-127</link>
		<dc:creator>gokhan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=223#comment-127</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t understand why a storage device can&#039;t replicate data over IP-Network? Is it too difficult? fcip routers not cost effective and not easy to manage solutions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand why a storage device can&#8217;t replicate data over IP-Network? Is it too difficult? fcip routers not cost effective and not easy to manage solutions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on TSM 6 recovery without a database restore! by Laurence Davenport</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=313&#038;cpage=1#comment-125</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurence Davenport</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=313#comment-125</guid>
		<description>I have seen this too, but in this case I can&#039;t remember it being an issue.  The servers did have different names too.  If it does cause an issue there is a very simple process to tweak the hostname in the DB2 parameters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have seen this too, but in this case I can&#8217;t remember it being an issue.  The servers did have different names too.  If it does cause an issue there is a very simple process to tweak the hostname in the DB2 parameters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on TSM 6 recovery without a database restore! by Luis</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=313&#038;cpage=1#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:44:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=313#comment-123</guid>
		<description>Thanks Laurence for the information, but there is one doubt I have, the hostname must be the same as the Production server because I had seen several times problems when you tried to start a DB2 on another server with different hostname (when you move the disks).

I also assume that you have to put the same IP address (in server2) that server1 has.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Laurence for the information, but there is one doubt I have, the hostname must be the same as the Production server because I had seen several times problems when you tried to start a DB2 on another server with different hostname (when you move the disks).</p>
<p>I also assume that you have to put the same IP address (in server2) that server1 has.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Slice of the Raspberry Pi and Cream! by Laurence Davenport</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-106</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurence Davenport</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=306#comment-106</guid>
		<description>There was a comment by the chap in the Raspi Foundation that the first stock would go to the hacker community, rather than education.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was a comment by the chap in the Raspi Foundation that the first stock would go to the hacker community, rather than education.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Slice of the Raspberry Pi and Cream! by Luke Bennett</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=306&#038;cpage=1#comment-105</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke Bennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=306#comment-105</guid>
		<description>Good find with the Airplay receiver! I fancy having a bash at that.

Being honest, I don&#039;t think kids are going to get a look-in with this first batch, way out numbered by keen techheads...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good find with the Airplay receiver! I fancy having a bash at that.</p>
<p>Being honest, I don&#8217;t think kids are going to get a look-in with this first batch, way out numbered by keen techheads&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on IBM Storwize v7000 Unified by Anthony Vandewerdt</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=272&#038;cpage=1#comment-85</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony Vandewerdt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=272#comment-85</guid>
		<description>Nice write up Laurence.   Two other bonuses with this architecture are really easy installation using a USB key and genuine active/active heads with either &#039;head&#039; module able to accept IO to any share.

One point is that external storage cannot be used with CIFs at the moment although you could still achieve what you want  by using a mix of disk types in the Storwize V7000 itself (i.e. a drawer of 300 GB 15K RPM disks versus a drawer of 3TB 7.2K RPM disks).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice write up Laurence.   Two other bonuses with this architecture are really easy installation using a USB key and genuine active/active heads with either &#8216;head&#8217; module able to accept IO to any share.</p>
<p>One point is that external storage cannot be used with CIFs at the moment although you could still achieve what you want  by using a mix of disk types in the Storwize V7000 itself (i.e. a drawer of 300 GB 15K RPM disks versus a drawer of 3TB 7.2K RPM disks).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The evolution of data protection by Mandy Jeffery</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=253&#038;cpage=1#comment-74</link>
		<dc:creator>Mandy Jeffery</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=253#comment-74</guid>
		<description>Have a good day!  Hope it all goes well :o)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have a good day!  Hope it all goes well <img src='http://www.StorageWisdom.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_surprised.gif' alt=':o' class='wp-smiley' /> )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on EMC VNX vs Netapp – the clash of the Unified Titans by Giovanni</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=206&#038;cpage=1#comment-71</link>
		<dc:creator>Giovanni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=206#comment-71</guid>
		<description>EMC VNX feels like a Frankenstein made of Celerra and Clarion parts. The fact that the single box has TWO operating systems should be enough to dismiss any claims of it being a &#039;unified&#039; storage.. perhaps EMC is too hardware focused and think that a single hardware package is enough for it to be unified.

We had a executive brief with them and the fact that I still have to size my SAN and NAS areas separately (dedicating RAID groups to that) is a big disappointment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EMC VNX feels like a Frankenstein made of Celerra and Clarion parts. The fact that the single box has TWO operating systems should be enough to dismiss any claims of it being a &#8216;unified&#8217; storage.. perhaps EMC is too hardware focused and think that a single hardware package is enough for it to be unified.</p>
<p>We had a executive brief with them and the fact that I still have to size my SAN and NAS areas separately (dedicating RAID groups to that) is a big disappointment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The truth about IBM Storwize v7000 IP replication by Laurence Davenport</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=223&#038;cpage=1#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurence Davenport</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 07:54:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=223#comment-66</guid>
		<description>I agree - FB is not the right tool for this role. the additional servers and storage would add cost and complexity to the sitation. use FCIP every time!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree &#8211; FB is not the right tool for this role. the additional servers and storage would add cost and complexity to the sitation. use FCIP every time!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The truth about IBM Storwize v7000 IP replication by TimS</title>
		<link>http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=223&#038;cpage=1#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>TimS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 07:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.StorageWisdom.com/?p=223#comment-65</guid>
		<description>oh my! TSM FB as a replication tool? As in a tool to be used to recover high level services? Loz - if you did a cost comparison of additional storage, servers, licenses and management skills surely FC wins?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oh my! TSM FB as a replication tool? As in a tool to be used to recover high level services? Loz &#8211; if you did a cost comparison of additional storage, servers, licenses and management skills surely FC wins?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

