<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Pricing on Evan Hoffman</title><link>https://evan.wtf/tags/pricing/</link><description>Recent content in Pricing on Evan Hoffman</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><copyright>Evan Hoffman</copyright><lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:20:56 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://evan.wtf/tags/pricing/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>VMWare 5's new licensing model.</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2011/07/17/vmware-5s-new-licensing-model-2/</link><pubDate>Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:20:56 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2011/07/17/vmware-5s-new-licensing-model-2/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;After reading up on the new VMware licensing&amp;amp;pricing model I understand the uproar. Limiting vRAM is a reasonable constraint, but 32GB per socket for Enterprise? 48 GB for &amp;ldquo;Enterprise Plus&amp;rdquo;? If you have a dual CPU server with 144 GB (easily configurable last year), with 4.1 you&amp;rsquo;d only need 2 enterprise licenses to use all 144 GB, since in 4.1 an &amp;ldquo;Enterprise&amp;rdquo; license covered 1 CPU (up to 6 cores) and up to 256 GB memory on the host.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Compellent Doesn't Suck</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2010/10/14/compellent-doesnt-suck-2/</link><pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:28:59 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2010/10/14/compellent-doesnt-suck-2/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I noticed a bunch of people landing on this site by searching for &amp;ldquo;compellent sucks.&amp;rdquo; I just want to avoid any confusion: Compellent doesn&amp;rsquo;t suck. Now that the pain of spending the money to expand our Compellent SAN is in the past, I am back to being in love with the product. The only gripe I&amp;rsquo;ve really ever had with Compellent is the price, and as Ben Franklin said:&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Compellent Doesn't Suck</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2010/10/14/compellent-doesnt-suck/</link><pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:28:59 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2010/10/14/compellent-doesnt-suck/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I noticed a bunch of people landing on this site by searching for &amp;ldquo;compellent sucks.&amp;rdquo; I just want to avoid any confusion: Compellent doesn&amp;rsquo;t suck. Now that the pain of spending the money to expand our Compellent SAN is in the past, I am back to being in love with the product. The only gripe I&amp;rsquo;ve really ever had with Compellent is the price, and as Ben Franklin said:&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>FiOS speed 10 months later, better than ever.</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2010/09/27/fios-speed-10-months-later-better-than-ever/</link><pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:44:48 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2010/09/27/fios-speed-10-months-later-better-than-ever/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I &lt;a href="https://evan.wtf/2009/12/05/fios-it-is/"&gt;switched to FiOS&lt;/a&gt; in December, 2009, and I was pretty apprehensive, having been a Cablevision customer for many years. I really had no problem with Cablevision&amp;rsquo;s service, I just thought their pricing was much too high in the face of the new competition (and deals) Verizon was offering. I ended up going with Verizon due to their awesome deal, but now it&amp;rsquo;s almost a year later and I can&amp;rsquo;t imagine going back to Optimum. It&amp;rsquo;ll probably come down to price when the current promo pricing I have with Verizon ends, but if the price was equal then no contest - I&amp;rsquo;d stick with FiOS.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>The bright side of Compellent</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2010/09/22/the-bright-side-of-compellent/</link><pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:07:46 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2010/09/22/the-bright-side-of-compellent/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Since I was bemoaning Compellent&amp;rsquo;s pricing recently I figured it would be unfair of me not to highlight the upside. Their tagline is (or was when we purchased it) &amp;ldquo;The only SAN so sophisticated it&amp;rsquo;s simple.&amp;rdquo; While I can&amp;rsquo;t say whether they&amp;rsquo;re the ONLY one, the idea is definitely true. This is the first SAN I&amp;rsquo;ve ever used, and aside from the learning curve for iSCSI itself (targets, spinup delay, etc.) it&amp;rsquo;s totally simple and intuitive. Create LUNs, map them to servers. Don&amp;rsquo;t worry about things like RAID levels or hot disks. We&amp;rsquo;re into our second year with Compellent and it&amp;rsquo;s definitely lived up to its promise of simplicity.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>The SAN Scam</title><link>https://evan.wtf/2009/04/03/the-san-scam/</link><pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:03:11 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://evan.wtf/2009/04/03/the-san-scam/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;It&amp;rsquo;s time to buy some more disks for the SAN we have at work. The SAN is made by &lt;a href="http://www.compellent.com/"&gt;Compellent&lt;/a&gt; and we&amp;rsquo;ve had it for a year and it&amp;rsquo;s been great. One of the selling points was the ability to add disks however we wanted - one at a time is possible, which apparently isn&amp;rsquo;t the case with other SAN products. The one we looked at from LeftHand expanded by purchasing entire nodes, so the incremental cost was pretty high. Compellent seemed to have a higher initial cost but cheaper incrementally.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>