Hadrian Barron

But knowing how big it is first is one of the keys.

And then after that, knowing what is the structure within it so we can decide, does this make sense to stick it on a flex volume?

Does it make sense to stick it on a flex group if it's really big?

And so on and so forth.

It's not super different, right?

At the end of the day, it's a NetApp volume that gets presented up over time.

you know, CIFS or NFS, just like a FlexVol.

So the process is generally XCP for when we're moving really large data sets because it is really, really fast at moving millions and millions of files in one cutover.

So the numbers we like to use are just to baseline it against rsync, right?

Because it is kind of a Linux type of tool, a lot of same kind of feel for the syntax as rsync, but 23 times faster copies

than rsync or 40 times faster copies than some other kind of more pricier

production offerings of, you know, third-party migration tools.

So it is, you know, the real de facto standard that we use when migrating to Flex Groups.

Otherwise, any other NAS migration tool will also do the job.

If you want something with, like, a more robust GUI or, you know, job scheduling, blackout windows, stuff like that, all the other migration tools would do it.

Data Dynamics, StorageX, we do quite a bit of work with, have been doing for years.

many years.

Now they're back to Quest, right?

Remember those guys, Quest software?

So now that, you know, it's not Dell anymore.