@scottalanmiller said in Scale with Increased Capacity:

What is holding it now that is not a NAS?

It started life on a bare metal 2003 R2 server in late 2007. Lived there until last year, when with the help of a friend who used to work for the now gobbled and displaced EHR company, he helped me migrate the entire thing to a Windows 2012 R2 VM. This VM is 750 GB total storage assigned, using around 640 GB. It's not growing anymore, pretty sure it's thin provisioned (it is, but it's expanded itself out to 716 GB).

This VM host has 1.1 TB of RAID 10 (8 drives 10K 300 GB).

@Dashrender said in Scale Computing Brings First Fully Featured Sub-$25,000 Flash Solution to SMB Market:

@PSX_Defector said in Scale Computing Brings First Fully Featured Sub-$25,000 Flash Solution to SMB Market:

SATA is perfectly fine for 90% of what people do. It's the 8% that need something more that would need SAS based while the last 2% will need PCI-E performance.

With numbers like those, ML seems like an odd place to be talking/worrying about it. Also, are the last 10% really looking at a Scale Cluster? I suppose some percentage of them might be.

90% of what people do, not 90% of people. It's a much higher percentage of people. That's why the Scale HC3 tiering system is such a good fit, we believe. It allows the majority of your storage to be tuned to sit on the SATA drives, which are perfectly fast enough for 90% of your needs, and lets the 10% of your needs that need to be on high performance SSD to sit there without needing two different solutions.

And with our heat mapping technology we help to tune the workloads for what is used rather than forcing you to pick manually for all workloads. You can override this with manual priorities, but on its own it self tunes.

So our hope is that the 90/10 split which is a good way to think of it actually makes Scale ideal for the majority of users because they have the 90/10 mix rather than in spite of it.