Apollo's most valuable features for us are its density and storage capabilities.
Apollo's most valuable features for us are its density and storage capabilities.
We're trying to keep all log files in our Hadoop server, which amounts to several terabytes a day of locked data that we need to analyze. Apollo allows us to use as few nodes as possible for this so that we have as much direct space capacity as possible. It gives us much more space per gigabyte.
It's a very good system when you need a lot of disk capacity. But it's unclear whether the performance of the IO will be sufficient when calculating the theoretical amount of time to read all the disc space. If the workload is not purely sequential, then performance in the IO is less than optimal because it's optimized for streaming processing.
We have no issues with deployment.
We installed it in place about a week ago, and it's been running without problems.
We have probably some 6,000 or 7,000 physical cells already and are planning more.
We have technical account managers who work with us. It's pretty much a direct line to HP without having to dial the general support number.
We previously used the DL380s. Compared to those, Apollo has roughly four times the amount of space per server, which means we can really do a lot. We technically could have four DL380s, but the licensing cost would have been significantly more.
The initial setup was straightforward, and we've been happy about it.