EMC Symmetrix v IBM Shark DASD

We've been primarily an EMC shop, but due to some issues with service and overall cost the last DASD purchase was awarded to IBM for a Shark. Our technical expectations were low, but we were surprised primarily by the S/390 PAV (parallel access volume) capabilities. In our case we are a large IMS data base shop and for certain highly accessed IMS databases the PAV provided superior service to EMC DASD (although somewhat old Technology 5700 and 5500's) The downside has been the amount of microcode and MVS maintenance that IBM has requested we install. From that standpoint the product (Shark) still seems to be somewhat immature. Also if you are looking for advanced features such and "snap copy" or "remote mirroring", IBM has been late indelivery of these features. Key's to a successful Shark deployement. 1) Plan to do MVS and Microcode maintenance more frequently and be sure you have a window to do maintenance in the 2 weeks preceeding the install. 2) If you are looking for good performance, don't overload the configuration, work with the IBM sales team to determine the maximum amount of storage that a sub-system can support for your workload and don't forget to allow for some growth. I read that IBM has recently up'd the amount of cache that can be installed.

I have seen a 295$ report from gartner that compares vendor products....

Pascal.guy@ca.cgeyc.com

I have worked with both the EMC and IBM boxes. At this point, I would have to recommend the EMC systems for ease of install and use. I believe though the IBM Shark boxes will be up to speed before Q2 2003. I'll try to find the live performance data I have from both systems and send it to you.