Comments on: NetApp and EMC: Replication Management Tools Comparison

By: StorageSavvy Blog 2010 in review « The StorageSavvy Blog

StorageSavvy Blog 2010 in review « The StorageSavvy Blog — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:31:35 +0000

[...] NetApp and EMC: Replication Management Tools Comparison June 2010 2 comments [...]

By: storagesavvy

storagesavvy — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:42:59 +0000

I do have to agree with you that for a small number of servers in an SMB market, running SnapManager on the servers as opposed to installing a central RM Server can be a benefit. Protection Manager is available at additional cost and gives visibility across all of the environment similar to what RM provides built in. Protection Manager is pretty clunky though (as of DFM 3.8). I believe there are SMB packages for RM to keep costs down in small environments, thats something that customers should work out with their sales teams.

YES! Competition is a good thing!

By: Ben Di Qual

Ben Di Qual — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:05:31 +0000

Good points.

Worth noting that I think the NetApp model is better for a SMBs where they don’t want a dedicated server for snaps/clones. RM centralised management of many servers superior when managing snaps/clones on more than 10 hosts.

NetApp have now brought out protection manager to manage multiple machines from one place – of course an additional cost – but on the other hand RM is much pricier than standard Snap Manager on their smaller models (2000 series)

The good thing about having two vendors that are so close is that they push each other to be better all the time.