Comments from David like “an existing HP XP storage array” lead me to believe this is a single monolithic storage array with 18TB on it. So why virutualize? No real explaination is given other than projected growth patterns and this is want the company wants to do. I currently use Virtualization so i am well versed in the pros of proactively moving to a virtualization strategy…but there is a lot of detail missing from David’s blog that raises too many questions.

My first question would be why would a company even consider keeping around storage that is this old as there “Top Tier Storage”? David’s blog gives no indication that the company has any plans to change its current monolithic strategy on this storage array…quite the oposite. David implies that this company wishs to continues to use this storage array for another 4 years front ended with the virtualization storage array (from david’s blog: Total purchase cost for the virtualization solutions was, as you can guess, less than a monolithic, but the 4-year TCO…) and at the same level of service. Why not just buy a new storage array and make it primary and move the old storage array to a low end need that doesn’t require the support and maintenece costs?

You could question the need for virtualization all together. If the company stays with the single storage array approach newer storage arrays offer many of the same features as virtualization…only limited to the single storage array.

My last observation is companies should realize there is a “cost” to keeping around older technologies and this article just demonstrates what most people in the industray already know. Virtualization is a great way tool in the storage world but when put in place by bad philosophies and poorly thought out plans this is what happens.

It seems this company has not properly thought out their approach and how it relates to their business and costs before deciding on a virtualization strategy.

Hopefully David will get this repaired soon…

tsa