On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Joe Landman <land...@scalableinformatics.com> wrote: > Please indulge my taking a contrarian view based upon the products we > sell/support/ship. > > I can't and won't sanction their tone to you ... they should have explained > things correctly. Given that PERC are rebadged LSI, yeah, I know perfectly > well a whole mess of drives that *do not* work correctly with them. > > So please don't take Dell to task for trying to help you avoid making what > they consider a bad decision on specific components. There could be a > marketing aspect to it, but support is a cost, and they want to minimize > costs. Look at failure rates, and toss the suppliers who have very high > ones.
To me the test is: Is there a price-markup on the specific part recommended. If a vendor just said "Drive X is compatible and tested; please use it" and then I peg Drive X against competing drives and see a significant price markup without commensurate observable statistics improvement then I smell a rat. I feel further that a Vendor could make itself more neutral in this exercise by just naming one or more compatible, validated drive-models rather than trying to sell those themselves after re-branding. That creates an obvious conflict of interest. It makes it difficult to deconvolute monopoly-pricing from a genuine desire to promote reliability. I'm not sure how much of a price markup there is on the approved Dell drives. -- Rahul _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
