In the process of determining which solution to go with we short-listed Maxta, Stratoscale
, and Scale. Maxta and Stratoscale
were software products and Scale was the appliance. All three received the same details of our infrastructure. Interestingly the number of spindles proposed by both Maxta and Stratoscale
exceeded our existing spindle count. This alerted us to the likelihood that their performance promises required that many spindles. On investigating the number of storage layers between the VM and the disk surface it became clear the Scale system was a clear winner. there were good technical reasons why scales disk management was better. Interestingly getting clear technical data out Stratoscale
was harder and like pulling hen's teeth with Maxta.
Critical to our plans was the concept of simplicity. Working with all three interfaces it became clear that Scale was the winner. In addition, having to deal with hardware and software separately was a problem, even if the Maxta and Statoscale performed the integration and were willing to be the single neck, we would still be dealing with two loosely integrated product layers. We wanted the tighter integration on all the components of the system that Scale provides. Then there was the communication and vendors ability to answer questions. Hands down Scale was the winner.
The issue of Vendor lock was not a concern. This may have been true when vendor products were wildly incompatible but is a false issue in today's more standards-driven environment. Porting our VM's into the Scale environment was easy because of the standards, and porting them out in the future, if we need to, will also be easy. Stratoscale
impressed us by coming close in overall costs and even better that Scale in product scope, but in the end, it was the other factors that settled us on Scale.