Cisco Storage Area Networking vs. StoneFly SAN Appliances

The best scenario where we found the Cisco Storage Area Networking is best suited is for an architecture where we need a robust technology that provides high level SLAs regarding downtime due to maintenance activities. Our infrastructure provides the core to our Data analytics team, which provides the data needed for our commercial and management leaders to make the right decisions thanks to the data. We need our infrastructure to be robust and reliable, when it runs smoothly, we can focus on other aspects of IT Infrastructure areas, giving our inside business clients the service they need.

Incentivized

• Provide low latency SAN access
• Easy to configure configuration language
• Great support from vendor
• No loss of service when doing maintenance activities

Incentivized

• Centralized Management through DCNM
• Cost (Port License Cost vs New Switch)
• 3rd Party SFP+ Compatibility
• Smart Zoning (personally prefer SIMT)

Incentivized

Has always worked just as it should.

Incentivized

We looked at the Brocade G series and IBM SAN switches, but the seamless integration into our AAA suite and availability of skills in our local market were big factors. We also have these deployed in FlexPod and VxBlock environments, which the reference architectures provide additional confidence in the solutions overall compatibility, supportability and sustainability.

Incentivized

We tend to not deploy MDS's in an ISL deployment pattern, rather deploying a single unit with high enough port density to suit our requirements. Our standard switches are either 9248 or 9396's. My only issue is the high cost of adding additional port licenses "golden screwdrivers" for existing infrastructure. Historically its been cheaper to add a new switch and ISL than add additional licenses if you only have 1/4 to 1/2 licensed.

Incentivized

• No connection drops
• Allowed easy management of the UCS Chassis
• Allows fast data transfers

Incentivized