<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Hyper-V using SOFS vs NetApp SMB 3.0 in Microsoft Virtualization Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Microsoft-Virtualization-Discussions/Hyper-V-using-SOFS-vs-NetApp-SMB-3-0/m-p/98099#M4069</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a customer asking about what the pros and cons would be to run Hyper-V using Windows Scale Out File Server instead of using NetApp SMB 3.0. MS is pushing hard telling the customer that there is no benifit to using NetApp or SAN when commidity hardware will suffice with SOFS. I checked the fieldportal can't find any type of matrix or battlecard comparing these options.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:23:37 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>MARC_GALLOWAY</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:23:37Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Hyper-V using SOFS vs NetApp SMB 3.0</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Microsoft-Virtualization-Discussions/Hyper-V-using-SOFS-vs-NetApp-SMB-3-0/m-p/98099#M4069</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a customer asking about what the pros and cons would be to run Hyper-V using Windows Scale Out File Server instead of using NetApp SMB 3.0. MS is pushing hard telling the customer that there is no benifit to using NetApp or SAN when commidity hardware will suffice with SOFS. I checked the fieldportal can't find any type of matrix or battlecard comparing these options.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:23:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Microsoft-Virtualization-Discussions/Hyper-V-using-SOFS-vs-NetApp-SMB-3-0/m-p/98099#M4069</guid>
      <dc:creator>MARC_GALLOWAY</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:23:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

