Suggested structure.... deleted as its now in place in the article ... Notice the complete lack of vendor and product references. Some of the storage virtualization technologies are still emerging and others are waning, so it would be hard to give a fair treatment to all. If anyone wants to take that on, be my guest! Plowden20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily start drafting some content as outlined above, may need some grammatical checking, but content wise not a problem (been working in Storage Virt for 5+ years) Agree that leaving vendor specifics and product references out is a good idea - also an unbiased view of implementation approach is needed, as each vendor tends to try and sell theirs as the 'correct' approach. Baz whyte11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I've made a stab at this, hopefully a vast improvement on what was there, but still needs a few bits filled in - and most def needs gramatical checking / wikifying! Baz whyte20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the edits changing the grammatical correctness of "data" being a plural noun. In the general case "data is" is almost always used rather than the strange looking "data are" - while I understand that a single piece of data is a datum - this almost never used. data being both singular and plural is the more common use in the IT industry and as such "data are" does not read well. Baz whyte18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needing work
Host based - need some more detail and contents on the various styles of host based storage virtualization
