Network Computing is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Barry University: Page 2 of 4

Barry University first took its requirements to Dell, which proposed a SAN with EMC Corp. (NYSE: EMC) Clariion storage arrays and Brocade Communications Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: BRCD) Fibre Channel switches.

Beaubrun was also interested in evaluating a NAS filer from Network Appliance Inc. (Nasdaq: NTAP). When he approached Moses about the idea of using NetApp, Moses balked -- his understanding was that Exchange is finicky about working with NAS filers.

It's easy to see why he might think that: Microsoft recommends that Exchange, as well as SQL Server, be used only with SAN- or direct-attached storage. But NetApp -- which has gone back and forth several times with Redmond on this issue -- says its SnapManager option makes its filers perfectly compatible with Microsoft's Exchange or SQL Server, even though Microsoft hasn't officially certified it via its Windows Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) program (see Microsoft vs. NAS: The Sequel, NetApp: 'Thanks, Microsoft!', and NetApp on Red Alert).

Barry University checked out the SnapManager software, which NetApp bundled with its F820 filer configured with 1 terabyte of storage, and decided to give it a whirl. It installed a test unit in January 2001. For several reasons, it eventually decided to go with the NetApp instead of the Dell SAN.

"Gauging the Dell solution against NetApp's was like comparing chalk with cheese," Moses says.