As far as the comparison tables.
First, those tables are meant to map features names to each other, not the underlying technology. Many vendors use the same name for different implementations that net similar results. In the case of deduplication, EMC actually calls it “deduplication” which is why I labeled it as such in the table, and then noted the technical differences in the table. As far as savings, every dataset will have different results. I’ve seen 95% savings on Celerra deduplicated filesystems with some types of data, and only 10% savings on NetApp deduplicated flexvols with certain types of data (both large file systems). I’m merely pointing out that each system has similar features, not claiming any specific space savings.

RAIDDP performance varies based on capacity utilization, age of the filesystem (ie: fragmentation), and IO profile. RAID5 and RAID10 performance on EMC storage varies mostly on IO profile. RAIDDP can be very fast, or quite slow depending on the above factors in comparison to a CLARiiON running RAID5. RAIDDP is essentially equivalent to RAID6 when it comes to data protection and I made no comment on the data protection portion since anyone who understands the RAID levels can make that observation.

A Thin Pool on CLARiiON is functionally the same as a NetApp Aggregate. It stripes data across all of the disks in the pool using RAID5 or RAID6 (RAID10 coming soon), allows for thin provisioning, and supports multiple LUNs. This has been available in CX4 since FLARE 28 and will be enhanced greatly in FLARE 30 next month. Thin Pools are not limited to 16TB however meaning a large thin pool from many large SATA drives can be created. The 16TB limit on an Aggregate means you can only have approximately 8-10 total spindles if you were using 2TB drives.

You are correct, that when SME, SMSQL (or EMC Replication Manager) create snapshots of a database or similar construct, the software effectively creates a consistent snapshot of the multiple LUNs hosting that application (database, logs, tempdb, etc). Specifically, the Consistency Group feature I was referring to is array-level consistency with no help from layered software. NetApp files do not have this feature. I have a post specifically on this topic coming in a couple of days.

Yes, a Snapview Clone is a full point-in-time copy of a LUN and can be on separate spindles from the source, or on the same spindles. It is recommended to be on separate spindles to isolate IO and provide for hardware redundancy. Snapview Snapshot data is kept in the Reserve LUN Pool which is generally on different physical disks from the source LUN, though it doesn’t technically have to be.

Having large aggregates does help minimize the need for moving a LUN or Filesystem to a different set of disks, but what if you have 4 x 4TB LUNs and you need to grow one of them. Since the maximum aggregate size is 16TB, you will have to move that LUN to another aggregate first, then expand. Without LUN Migration, that move will be disruptive. With EMC, you could create a MetaLUN, striping or concatenating more space, even from a different RAID Group, or LUN migrate to a new RAID Group (or Thin Pool). Expansion can be done as part of the migration, or after the migration completes.

With respect to user interfaces, it’s always subjective as far as ease-of-use, and sometimes it’s whichever one you learned first. The key difference however, is that you can’t manage all of the features NetApp provides in ONTap with FilerView, nor can you manage all of the features with Systems Manager. Navisphere is fully-featured, meaning you don’t have to use the command line if you don’t want to. Celerra Manager, while a little slow, is similarly full-featured. Unisphere, coming in about a month, will change everything for the better.

quick note about the “netapp sales force”. You bought a n series – while it is simply a netapp with a different badge and splash screen you would of got IBM doing sales/pre-sales and, from personal experience, their netapp (n series) pre-sales is nowhere near as good as netapp.

Now looking through you tables:
In netapp NFS are exports still – not shares.
Disagree with you saying celerra has de-dupe (even though you specify in notes it is really compression which everyone knows). I’ve got netapp to 70% dedupe savings on production VMs – Celerra will never come close to this.
RAID 6 = RAID5-RAID10. This statement is only talking about RAID types, not perf and doesn’t take into account further data protection from RAID6 (DP) and the entire stripe writes and writing to first free block that WAFL does to get extremely fast writes to disk. Look at SPC results for perf stats
NetApp does offer RAID 4 as well
EMC does not have a real equivilant to an aggregate…yet. They are offering something similar in VCX though
Consistency Group = when setting up snapmirror and something like SME, SMSQL etc the correct LUNs for logs and db are snapshotted at the same time for consistency. They just don’t give it a name as far as I’m aware
Snapview clone = clone means creating a snapshot to separate disk in EMC terms. It is the recommended way for DBs with EMC. Netapp keep snapshots and flexclones on the same physical disks (within the aggregate). Similar functionality to an EMC clone can be done with SnapVault
No function exactly like LUN migration. Due to aggregates with a large spindle count and capacity do not need to move LUNs around constantly to different RAID groups like EMC.

navisphere does not equal filer view in my opinion. I would never use filer view for anything except the manual components. Command line (my personal favourite) or system manager (mmc snap in) are equivilants

3010: A MultiStore Primer
http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/04/08/3010-a-multistore-primer/