Persistent Tier vs Capacity Tier

[RedNectar]

I've been reading the Capacity Management in Cisco HyperFlex White Paper, and I have a couple of issues with the wording used in this paper

In particular, the use of the term "persistent tier" - in fact, I believe the term "persistent tier" should NOT be used at all, and the term "capacity tier" or "capacity layer" used consistently throughout.

My objection to the use of "persistent tier" or "persistent Storage" is that when used in this paper, it ALWAYS is referring to CAPACITY storage.

Now this is actually a big problem, because the inference is that data written to the "Write Log" is NOT PERSISTENT - because it has NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN to the persistent tier.

Which of course is WRONG. Data in the Write Log IS persistent.  Statements like

Whenever there is a write/delete operation, it first sits in the write log and doesn’t enter the persistent tier until the complete space in the write log is occupied.

-the thought that data sits in a log for any amount of time before being made persistent is enough to frighten any potential customer right away from using HyperFlex.

Please re-word this paper to remove this confusion. The quoted text above SHOULD read

Whenever there is a write/delete operation, it first sits in the write log and doesn’t enter the capacity tier until the complete space in the write log is occupied.

I hope someone with authority to change this reads this post. I have submitted the same text as feedback on the article.