I wouldn't have picked up on this story if Storagezilla hadn't retweeted it and I'm not going to blame him but sometimes journalists and marketeers drive me mad; perhaps I'm a little naive to expect some kind of accuracy and sense but I still do!
That sounded a really interesting little story and as it was tweeted by 'Zilla, I knew it was going to be about Isilon. And it was about space! How cool!
Then I read the story and really it's making something out of not a lot. Two Isilon clusters with 11 nodes and 700 Terabytes of disk each; okay, that's a reasonable size but it's not petabytes; its 1.4 petabyte, over a petabyte indeed but petabytes? I expect to see at least two petabytes. And actually, they are a mirror pair, so less than a petabyte of unique data(and there's also no mention if that is usable as opposed to raw).
Of course then you pick out the detail; 100 Terabytes of data to start with, growing at approximately 170 Terabytes a year. So it could end up being petabytes eventually...maybe!
However there is another even less postive spin to put on this, Isilon have managed to sell about 3-4 years capacity which will sit there spinning and depreciating?
Great job by the sales-man but! Isilon have great technology which means selling all this capacity up front is pretty unnecessary and gets the customer to pay up front for capacity that they don't need and capacity which can be added non-disruptively and smoothly as and when required.
That's the sort of behaviour that as an end-user drives me nuts! I understand why the vendor does so but don't we keep talking about partnership and don't vendors keep talking about efficiency?
Of course, I could just be channelling my friend Ian but actually I think's just my own grumpiness this time!