<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic SSD Option for SNS-3695 in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ssd-option-for-sns-3695/m-p/3902172#M470794</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;The SNS-3695 is built with 8x 600 GB 10k hard drives, and for a PSN I feel that is fine. Has there been any thought put in to offering an option to replace these drives with SSD's?&amp;nbsp; The primary use case I have in mind is for the monitoring nodes.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Since it is not possible right now when ordering, is there a possibility of field replacing the HDDs with SSDs, understanding that there would be RMA implications?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 16:13:14 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-08-02T16:13:14Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>SSD Option for SNS-3695</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ssd-option-for-sns-3695/m-p/3902172#M470794</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The SNS-3695 is built with 8x 600 GB 10k hard drives, and for a PSN I feel that is fine. Has there been any thought put in to offering an option to replace these drives with SSD's?&amp;nbsp; The primary use case I have in mind is for the monitoring nodes.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Since it is not possible right now when ordering, is there a possibility of field replacing the HDDs with SSDs, understanding that there would be RMA implications?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 16:13:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ssd-option-for-sns-3695/m-p/3902172#M470794</guid>
      <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-08-02T16:13:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SSD Option for SNS-3695</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ssd-option-for-sns-3695/m-p/3902180#M470796</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;- I wouldn't recommend this on an appliance : 1) Even if some has slightly modified the standard disk driver from the underlying OS, you will probably get into trouble. &lt;STRONG&gt;2)&lt;/STRONG&gt; More important ; the product is no longer &lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;certified&lt;/FONT&gt; on modified hardware configurations.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;M.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 16:25:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ssd-option-for-sns-3695/m-p/3902180#M470796</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark Elsen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-08-02T16:25:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SSD Option for SNS-3695</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ssd-option-for-sns-3695/m-p/3902204#M470798</link>
      <description>That's why I'm raising the question if it has been considered, support can be added if it becomes a tested configuration or orderable. &lt;BR /&gt;Cisco's own super MnT testing numbers on a 2.4 3595 w/ 256 GB of memory demonstrated that the real performance gains are had with SSD storage, and not the just the memory increase.  &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;It's extremely hard to get customers to buy in to 256 GB VM's with 24,000 MHz reservations.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 17:01:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ssd-option-for-sns-3695/m-p/3902204#M470798</guid>
      <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-08-02T17:01:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SSD Option for SNS-3695</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ssd-option-for-sns-3695/m-p/3903766#M470799</link>
      <description>You should be discussing this with ISE-PM team or in the security partner community where the PMs sometimes roam &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt; since it is a feature request. Us TMEs don't get involved with that too much</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 13:17:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ssd-option-for-sns-3695/m-p/3903766#M470799</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jason Kunst</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-08-06T13:17:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

