AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20081110110241.2ae0a01b@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:exch1.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<bob.miller@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:04:58 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Bob Miller <bob.miller@onstor.com>
Subject: different spots
Message-ID: <20081110110458.277b15bc@ripper.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Leopard based on cougar hardware (leopard with different spots):

A cougar 3110 is the right performance level for this product, and a
3110 running with Linux on the TXRX could be made for about $1000 less
COGs than the current cougar (1280s instead of 1480s, no 1125).  So
initially we would start with the current cougar hardware as is, but if
it is a big seller, we could redo the hardware very easily for $1000
savings per box.

All that would be needed besides that is 2-3 canned configurations so
the configuration part is simple: user selects one and off they go.
Combined with the GUI revamp work, it should be appropriate for the
channel market.

That, combined with the Fujitsu pricing, should be quite competitive.

======================================

Why two filesystems?

The "why two filesystems" question can be answered rather easily: lots
of systems have more than one file system, take Linux for instance,
with half a dozen high performance, high reliability filesystems.  EFS
is more appropriate for the performance levels we expect from the low
power, high performance product that is our gateways.  ZFS is more
appropriate for the lower end product with cheap, less reliable, less
sophisticated hardware.

