2013-09-03 05:06 AM
What's the advantages/disadvantages of utilizing Netapp's Flash Accel 1.2 software over the about to be released vSphere Flash Read Cache. Are there any documents out there that goes in depth comparing the two products...just curious as they both seem to do the same thing.
Solved! SEE THE SOLUTION
2013-09-04 05:51 PM
I'm the product manager for Flash Accel. Here's my perspective - hope it helps.
At the core, vFRC and Flash Accel are both server read / write-through caches that are intended to increase application / server performance and increase efficiency of backend network storage. Another key similarity they share is that they are both flash hardware agnostic, and can be supported on a variety of server PCI-e flash or SSD drives
Here’s a list of the key differences:
Now let’s talk about the pros and cons of agent-less vs. agent-based approach
First the benefit of agent-less:
Now let's look at the benefit of an agent-based approach like Flash Accel:
A server cache should ideally have both an agent and well as an agent-less configuration so that customers can choose the option that best fit their environment and requirements. That is the approach Flash Accel will be taking.
Let me know if you have any other questions!
2013-09-24 05:29 AM
Thanks for the in depth response. I know it will surely help answer questions that other forum members may have.
Do you know if version 1.2 supports esxi 5.5 which was just released.
2013-09-24 05:43 AM
Not yet, it’s looking NetApp Flash Accel 1.2 supports vsphere 5.1 yet..