X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C8675D.4B438721@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:39:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Beta Readiness Criteria Document
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:39:33 -0700
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0812B2E6@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20080204103140.74c30ed1@ripper.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Beta Readiness Criteria Document
Thread-Index: AchnXC+BrhHAnghEQf6XB99CWV7y8QAAGBVg
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0812AF9A@onstor-exch02.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E080CB04C@onstor-exch02.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0812B255@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <20080204103140.74c30ed1@ripper.onstor.net>
From: "Joshua Goldenhar" <IMCEAEX-_O=ONSTOR_OU=FIRST+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=JOSHUA+2EGOLDENHAR@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>

Oh andy - don't start the religious crap ;-)

The responses show up in a different color in outlook - probably in
Evolution too.

If I make outlook use the old/unix-accepted reply method of quoting "> "
and put all responses in-line, most Windows users have no clue - I've
gotten back emails that say "Your reply was blank..."

So there is not really a good method that works for all. I hate
top-posted replies but that's what most Windows users expect and most of
my communications are with windows users, so I've gotten lazy.

I'll check the Outlook options again and see if there's a better
response option...

In the mean time, I gave an answer to every one of Paul's questions so
the sentence after the newline is my response.

-Josh

Josh Goldenhar
Phone: 408 963 2408, Cell: 408 547 7693

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sharp=20
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 10:32 AM
To: Joshua Goldenhar
Subject: Re: Beta Readiness Criteria Document

Hi Josh,

Sooo, which are the comments and which are the responses?

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:02:21 -0800 "Joshua Goldenhar"
<joshua.goldenhar@onstor.com> wrote:

> Responses in-line below..
>=20
> =20
>=20
> -Josh=20
>=20
> Josh Goldenhar=20
> Phone: 408 963 2408, Cell: 408 547 7693=20
>=20
> ________________________________
>=20
> From: Paul Hammer=20
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 12:16 PM
> To: Joshua Goldenhar; dl-Cougar
> Subject: RE: Beta Readiness Criteria Document
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Thanks Josh, very helpful and a good start.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Sandrine is correct, we do not currently have plans/requirements to
> increase the number of vsvr's or volumes. Also believe that the >2tb
> lun will only be available by FCS, won't make beta.=20
>=20
> Hmm - OK, did that drop out while I was away? Did it move to keg or is
> it off the table all together. I didn't think the lun label stuff
> would make Beta, that's why I put it in "desired" instead of
> required. I removed the >32 vservers.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Assume where the docs says 2 node cluster it means 2 mother boards
> and 1 physical chassis. Believe that QA is already testing with a 2
> physical chassis and 4 mother board cfg, Vikas can you confirm?
>=20
> Yes - I believe we will only be sending out single chassis, dual node
> systems.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> So for beta it looks like we only require 3 switches and 2 storage
> arrays supported (only surprise to me was the absence of Nexsan). This
> is good. What is a V100 Pantera? Is this Xyratex?
>=20
> Yes, the V100 is the Xyratex 5404 storage. No Nexsan in the beta
> customers and we want to start de-emphasizing our support for Nexsan
> since we will push the V100 as a denser alternative.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Can you let us know what DMA we need qualified (if any) , and with
> what tape device?
>=20
> None - I put NDMP and backup apps in the "desired" section. If we get
> any, it's a bonus. NetBackup would probably top the list. LT03 and 04
> tape drives. Doc has been updated.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Client support looks good, not sure we need NT (can't recall if we
> even support today outside of an AD host), no Mac support?
>=20
> Mac support is thorny because of the leopard issue. Last I heard we
> were considering this an apple problem, not ours to fix, that Apple
> would be coming out with a patch. Has that changed?
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Thought we discussed DMIP at the team meeting last week and agreed
> that we did not have to have this support, although Cougar to Bobcat
> and vice a versa is a feasible combination. I am okay with adding it
> if it will help with the beta should not be hard to test, don't think
> there is any incompatibility between the two. Ditto for vol import.
>=20
> I'm OK moving DMIP (cougar-Cougar) to "desired" as Sandrine was right
> that it is unlikely to be tested. I would like to keep vol import in
> required but is this important to test if the LUN label work is NOT
> there?
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Given our customer base I would think that we may need to require
> Copper SFP's support for beta.
>=20
> Yep.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Josh, are we providing and Pantera's for beta (Cougar with Storage pre
> configured), or are we only providing Cougar?
>=20
> I believe we are only supplying Cougar HW, no storage.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Are we going to require a beta refresh during the beta (forces testing
> of upgrade in the field, think that would be a good test)?
>=20
> I think it's inevitable - I thought I had put system upgrade in must
> have but I see it's missing, adding it to the doc.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Post Beta Completion questions (not sure that they belong in the
> readiness doc but thought I would ask):
>=20
> Do we have to retain user data created during the beta?
>=20
> Nope.
>=20
> Do we have to retain configuration data created during the beta?
>=20
> Nope
>=20
> Do we have to have a way to migrate a cougar from Beta code to
> production code?
>=20
> Hmm - The last discussion I was involved in said we were going to
> bring the Beta units back home, that the units that went out for beta
> would not be converted to sales - at least not the actual physical
> units themselves. I suppose much of the answer to this question lies
> with "Will the beta units be complete HW final versions, at final
> versions of PROM code?" and if system upgrade works properly. Will
> have to investigate.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> =20
>=20
> -Paul
>=20
> =20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> ________________________________
>=20
> From: Joshua Goldenhar
> Sent: Sun 2/3/2008 9:59 AM
> To: dl-Cougar
> Subject: Beta Readiness Criteria Document
>=20
> First released draft is attached. It will be kept and maintained in:
>=20
> \\mightydog\Program Management\Cougar\Marketing
>=20
> -Josh=20
>=20
> Josh Goldenhar=20
> Sr. Dir. Technical Strategy=20
> ONStor, Inc. - http://www.onstor.com/=20
> joshua.goldenhar@onstor.com=20
> Phone: 408 963 2408, Cell: 408 547 7693=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
