There are a few small BUTS. Wrong numbers, hasty conclusions, and no price, you see:
- In NetApp wp-7267 doc there are 2 graphics with enabled and disabled image distortion. FlashBlade tests show numbers only for image distortion disabled, The Register compared apples with oranges: NetApp A700 with image distortions *enabled* and FlashBlade image distortions *disabled* which mislead readers to make them thinking NetApp worse 7% to 19% than Pure while it’s 1% to 6%
- The comparison was for A700, not the latest High-End A800
- The comparison didn’t include price, which might be way more than 6% difference
- A700 also have both SAN & NAS, on another hand FlashBlade is only NAS solution
- While single FlashBlade full of 15 blades (52TB each) can scale-up to 535TB usable capacity (1.6 PB effective assuming 1:3 reduction ratio from usable space) and scale-out up to 5 chassis meaning 2.6PB (8PB effective assuming 1:3 reduction ratio from usable space) on another hand single HA A700 (2 nodes) can scale-up to 5PiB (15PiB effective assuming 1:3 reduction ratio from usable space) with x480 15TB drives and than can scale-out to 24 nodes (12 HA pares) for NAS, meaning 60PiB (180PiB effective assuming 1:3 reduction ratio from usable space). There is 20 times difference (either usable or effective space) concerning usable capacity & scalability which might be necessary for things like AI, DL, etc
- Note that with incompressible data like images, video, audio, pre-compressed or encrypted, etc., data no noticeable storage efficiencies will be gained with both NetApp & Pure systems, therefore effective will be equal to the usable capacity
- Moreover, you can scale performance. The tests show us performance for one fully populated FlashBlade chassis vs. one HA pare of A700. So how will performance scale? Let’s assume 5 times with scaling-up to 5 chassis with FlashBlade or 12 times with A700.
That’s how you get a badge of yellow journalism.