Why is it when storage vendors hawk a system below a certain price point – say $10,000 – it automatically becomes an SMB product?
Take HP’s MSA upgrade launched today. According to HP’s press release,
“The easy-to-use, enterprise-class systems are designed for small and mid-size businesses …”
But the real use for the system comes next, after a however,
“… enterprises also will find the MSA2000 is an ideal solution for their remote office, departmental, secondary and tertiary storage needs.”
The real purpose for the MSA2000 is the second one listed. SMBs are listed first because that’s considered the hot “greenfield” market today. But just because the MSA is at the low end of HP’s SAN portfolio doesn’t make it right for SMBs. They’re more an option for existing HP customers to add smaller storage deployments or to hook up to blade servers. That doesn’t make them bad; but they’re smaller versions of HP’s SANs and not built for SMBs.
Charles Vallhonrat, MSA product manager, HP StorageWorks division admits as much. When I asked about the system being for SMBs, he said yes, the price point is low and management is simple, “but we also see a large uptake with large customers putting it in remote offices and departments.”
HP says the list price starts at $4,999 but you better have a lot of unused storage lying around because that price includes no disk. That price covers a single iSCI controller. If you want 4.5 TB of SATA storage, it costs $7,993. A single Fibre Channel controller costs $5,999 without disk and $8.993 with 4.5 TB of SATA drives. Dual controller systems add $2,500 to the price. More expensive SAS drives are also available.
Vallhonrat says a single controller system is viable because the controllers include transportable cache. If one fails, you can move the cache to a new controller and recover data. That’s useful for a storage administrator, but probably not something the person who manages systems at an SMB wants to deal with.
HP isn’t alone in labeling its small enterprise systems as SMB offerings. EMC does the same with its Clariion AX systems. The difference is HP has a real SMB system – called the All-In-One.
Vallhonrat says the MSA2000 platform is meant to compete with IBM’s DS3000, Dell’s MD3000 and the lower-end of the AX4.
As for differences between the MSA200 and All-In-One, he compared it to using a dedicated printer or scanner as opposed to a multifunction device. The All-In-One is the multifunction device with iSCSI and NAS for block and file storage while the MSA2000 handles only block storage.
“All-In-One is for people who have a need for multiple storage types [file and block], but not the best performance for one type,” he said. “Like a multifunction printer, it’s not best scanner or best printer but does all. The MSA is for if you need better performance or availability, but not the ease of use or functionality of the All-In-One.”
I’m sure any number of you can come up with witty figurative responses to that, but I actually mean it literally.
Back in August I did a case study on CERN, the world’s largest physics laboratory, in Switzerland, and the petabytes of data storage that are going to support research on its Large Hadron Collider (LHC). LHC is a 12-story-high, 10-mile-wide underground system of tunnels, magnets and sensors that’s designed to do no less than recreate atomic conditions at the creation of the universe and capture particles that until now have been only theoretical.
Having spoken with CERN about their research and the way the whole system is set up, I was surprised when I logged in to my personal email this morning and got a friend request from a profile titled STOP CERN. According to the profile:
This space has been set up to spread awareness of the risks a project due to be launched at CERN next year poses to our planet. For the first time in many decades someone has built a machine that exceeds all our powers of prediction, and although they estimate the possibility of accidentally destroying the planet as extremely low, the LHC propaganda machine that ‘everything is safe’ is well funded by your tax dollars, paying large salaries to thousands of people who have much to lose financially should the LHC be unable to prove its safety. As most of them perceive the risk to be small, they are willing to take that ‘small risk’ at our expense. The actual risk cannot presently be calculated, and a Large Hadron Collider [LHC] legal defense fund has even been set up to challenge CERN on the project.
I don’t have any kind of physics background, so I don’t know if the criticisms are legit, but I was doubly surprised to find that the MySpace profile is only the tip of the iceberg of people questioning CERN. In addition to some other critical websites, an LHC Legal Defense Fund has been started with the goal of legally intervening to stop CERN from turning on LHC this May, creating a black hole within the collider and accidentally destroying the planet.
By the way, isn’t that really every geek’s dream? To be working on a machine that even theoretically could accidentally destroy the planet?
Anyway, the debate seems to be whether or not something called “Hawking evaporation” (presumably named after physicist Stephen Hawking) will neutralize the microscopic black holes that could be created by the particle collisions in LHC, or if they’ll continue to grow and, well, eat France.
According to another anti-CERN site:
If MBH’s [microscopic black holes] are created, there is a likelyhood [sic] that some could fall unimpeded to the centre of the Earth under gravity…Scientists have estimated that a stable black hole at the center of the earth could consume not only France but the whole planet in the very short time span of between 4 minutes and 30 seconds and 7 minutes.
I’m a little more inclined to believe the multiple accredited physics organizations around the world involved in the LHC project know what they’re doing than I am to believe some people I’ve never heard of from the Internet, but what do I know? The criticism has at least been strong enough to prompt CERN to post a kind of FAQ page about black holes, strangelets, and all manner of interesting potential doomsday scenarios that have been envisioned for LHC.
Despite the impressive power of the LHC in comparison with other accelerators, the energies produced in its collisions are greatly exceeded by those found in some cosmic rays. Since the much higher-energy collisions provided by Nature for billions of years have not harmed the Earth, there is no reason to think that any phenomenon produced by the LHC will do so.
Wouldn’t it just be something, though, if after centuries of war and pollution and all the other things mankind has done to compromise the planet, Armageddon was actually brought about by a bunch of guys in a physics lab?
So far, I’d have to say Dell has done just about everything it can to make its acquisition of EqualLogic go right. The question now, though, is whether or not it will be enough.
Dell has said all the right things, gone through all the right motions, to address user and channel partner concerns. They’ve trotted out Michael Dell to assuage channel partners multiple times, held user forums, and demonstrated with their event yesterday that they mean to continue to develop EqualLogic’s product. What’s been most interesting to me is the way Dell has gone about handling the merger with the open admission it doesn’t have much storage expertise–hence the attempt to hire a storage analyst to supply some of that know-how.
Along these same lines, Dell also seems to recognize that retention of EqualLogic personnel is important. They held their post-acquisition event yesterday at EqualLogic’s former headquarters in Nashua, NH, which might as well be Siberia as far as a big multinational like Dell is concerned. Still, it appears EqualLogic will be staying put there, at least for now. “Dell” has been added to permanent signs around the office park campus as well as inside the offices; otherwise, the facilities look exactly as I remember from having visited there in the past.
Some familiar faces are also at least giving the Dell gig a chance–much of the EqualLogic PR and marketing staff that I’m familiar with has been re-titled and retained with Dell. The most encouraging sign I saw yesterday was that EqualLogic’s former VP of marketing, John Joseph, was front and center as VP of marketing for Dell.
All this has to be comforting for end users, who told me after the acquisition closed that what they want is for Dell to essentially leave EqualLogic’s product alone, except maybe where pricing is concerned. Yesterday, Dell tweaked EqualLogic’s chassis design a bit, standardizing both its SAS and SATA arrays on a 16-bay form factor, and said it will ship the new PS5000 at a lower price per GB than its predecessors–$19,000 starting list price for a chassis with 2 TB of storage, as opposed to $22,500 previously for 1.75 TB capacity. So far, so good.
But Dell also confirmed yesterday that Tony Asaro has left, and estimated EqualLogic CEO Don Bulen’s tenure at around 3 to 6 months now that the acquisition has closed. For execs like John Joseph to still be around is also typical of this stage of the acquisition process, and it remains to be seen how many familiar faces will remain in Nashua a year from now. There’s still a long road ahead, and the fact that Dell’s attempt to add expertise from Asaro fell through, the uncertain future of Bulens, and the fact that channel partners are still not going quietly, are the first rumblings of the political difficulties that could follow. And that’s to say nothing of the technical ones.
So far, Dell can leave EqualLogic largely as-is, but eventually, it’s going to have to wade in and change, or at least update, EqualLogic products, if only to keep up with technology trends. Furthermore, to get the bang for its 1.4 billion bucks, Dell’s also probably going to have to get its hands dirty spreading EqualLogic’s IP around its other product lines.
Meanwhile, Dell’s partner / competitor, EMC, isn’t going to be sitting idly by–the storage giant has already taken an indirect shot at Dell’s fledgling storage business with the AX4-5. Dell is clinging to the Fibre Channel capabilities of that array as a differentiator, but EMC officials have made it clear that the AX4-5 is an iSCSI play. In fact, with eerily similar messaging around ease of use and support for virtualized server environments, AX4-5 and EqualLogic’s new PS5000 series seem destined to do battle. Factor in the fact that this somewhat contentious set of product lines will be distributed by two potentially conflicting sales forces–direct and the channel–and we have all the makings of a rodeo on our hands.
When all these chickens come home to roost, Dell will have to hope that the storage expertise it picked up with EqualLogic’s remaining execs sticks around longer than Tony Asaro did. If Dell can retain people like Joseph, as well as EqualLogic’s existing support and engineering staff, to keep the technology on a steady course, it has a good chance of sorting out the political and logistical hurdles to bring EqualLogic’s product to market. But if it can’t, well…as a certain loudmouthed NFL wide receiver would say, get your popcorn ready.
This has to be some kind of record. I haven’t gotten hold of him directly yet, but sources close to the situation confirmed today that Tony Asaro has left Dell, less than a month after leaving analyst firm Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) for the vendor.
Asaro’s departure from Dell was followed closely throughout the storage industry, with fellow analysts and even the readers of this blog throwing in their two cents. “I give him 12-18 months” wrote Storage Soup commenter “chameleon”.
Turns out chameleon should’ve taken the under on that bet.
As a reporter, this little tidbit is giving me an allergic reaction, because it prompts more questions than it answers. Why did Asaro go to Dell in the first place? And once he made that move, why did he leave after only about three weeks? Why did he tender his resignation suddenly, so suddenly that Dell had already sent out an invitation to an event Monday with his name on it? And where does he go from here?
At the time of his departure from ESG, we cautioned:
[Asaro] will need to be careful to avoid the fate of another former analyst, Randy Kerns, who left the Evaluator Group to become a vice president of strategy and planning at Sun in September 2005, shortly after Sun completed a blockbuster acquisition of its own. Less than a year later, he left Sun, resurfacing in October 2006 as CTO of ProStor Systems.
In retrospect, that seems laughable. Compared to Asaro’s tenure at Dell, Sun should’ve given Kerns a gold watch.
Speaking of Dell, EqualLogic and questions, there’s some head-scratching going on as to why EqualLogic CEO Don Bulens isn’t listed among the execs at Monday’s event. That has people asking how long he’ll stick around now that the deal is closed. I’ll be there reporting, and that’s one question I hope will be answered, along with its attendant followups, as soon as possible. Stay tuned to the news page for more.
I don’t refer to many things related to data storage as humorous, but I have to admit this is a hoot.
Everybody knows by now that EMC hasn’t submitted its products to the Storage Performance Council (SPC) for performance benchmarking, saying it’s a rigged system.
So some in the storage industry feared that hell had frozen over when they saw an SPC benchmark published for Clariion this week (scroll down, it’s in the table). Actually, two SPC-1 benchmarks have been published for the Clariion CX-3 model 40, one with and one without SnapView enabled.
One little twist, however: in the “test sponsor” column next to EMC’s products is the name “Network Appliance Inc.”
Now that. is. hilarious.
Shockingly, the NetApp-submitted benchmark numbers show the Clariion CX-3 40 with lower performance than that of NetApp’s FAS3040. Or, as a NetApp press release put it:
In both cases, the NetApp FAS3040 outshined the EMC CLARiiON CX3-40, delivering 30,985.90 SPC-1 IOPs versus 24,997.48 SPC-1 IOPs (baseline result) and a robust 29,958.60 SPC-1 IOPs versus just 8,997.17 SPC-1 IOPs (baseline result with snapshots enabled). These results further validate NetApp as the high-performance leader for real-world data center deployments featuring value-add data management and data protection functionality.
While I agree NetApp’s move is somewhat ridiculous, if there were a mom refereeing between these squabbling siblings of the storage market, NetApp could accurately say, “But he started it!”
In fact, not only did EMC start it, but it did this exact thing first. This bickering goes back to the hoary days of November 2006. NetApp released the 3000 series and published performance specs that showed its new array performing far better than EMC’s newest Clariions. Although performance testing is generally against its beliefs, EMC couldn’t let that stand, so did its own test on NetApp’s equipment. EMC’s internal tests showed that NetApp’s filers initially perform better than Clariion, but as NetApp systems fill up its WAFL file system causes fragmentation that slows everything down. So EMC conceded NetApp’s original results, but contended the initial results were reflective of how performance on the NetApp system would change over time. I waded into this whole mess back when it happened, if you want to read what analysts had to say, it’s all here.
“Many companies have access to other vendor’s equipment–competitive analysis is nothing new,” argued SPC administrator Walter Baker. “NetApp’s not the only EMC competitor to have run competitive analysis.”
“But they’re the only competitor whose analysis you’re endorsing,” I replied. Baker insisted it’s not an endorsement–that publication on SPC’s Web site among all its other specs merely serves as notification that NetApp’s results have been submitted for approval. He also pointed out that unlike, say, vendor-published white papers about another vendor’s product, there’s a redress process for EMC in this case.
There’s a 60-day review period before the result is officially accepted. Until then it’s submitted for review status. In that period, it can be challenged by any member company, or in this case, EMC, that the testing was not compliant with the SPC-1 spec or did not represent the performance the Clariion should have attained.
Baker said EMC has not challenged yet. “Absolutely not–and they have been notified, because I spoke with them myself,” he said. He added, “as the auditor I feel the result produced by NetApp is representative.” Pressed further, Baker said his basis for that conclusion was “talking to people who are familiar with EMC equipment.
“I understand what you’re saying,” he admitted. “At first blush it does seem to be a conflict of interest–but it really doesn’t serve Netapp’s purpose if they were to understate or undermine the performance of the EMC equipment, because it would bring about an immediate response from EMC.”
EMC hasn’t yet responded to my e-mail about this, but something tells me they’ll have something to say before the review period is up. And what about this really serves NetApp’s purposes anyway? Have they done anything with this than cast aspersion on the very spec at the core of this latest volley against EMC? If there’s anything to be learned from this from my point of view, it’s to add an extra shake of salt when referring to SPC benchmarks.
And seriously, I would love to see the user considering a Clariion against an FAS3040 for whom this is the tipping point in one direction or another–I would love to see the user on the verge of signing on the dotted line for a Clariion suddenly saying, “But wait! NetApp’s performance testing shows this array doesn’t perform as well as the FAS3040!”
It’s kind of like when MacDonald’s tells you its fries taste better than Burger King’s, when Coke tells you more
compensated blindfolded taste testers picked its soda over Pepsi’s in a carefully controlled totally off-the-cuff random taste test, when a Red Sox fan walks up to you with a T-shirt that says “YANKEES SUCK!” All that it really, reliably tells you is what one company thinks of its competitor. And we kind of don’t need a press release about that, especially not when it comes to NetApp and EMC.
When Network Appliance hired Tom Georgens to run its enterprise storage systems group in 2005, many storage insiders suspected it was grooming him to succeed Dan Warmenhoven as CEO. NetApp sent a strong signal that was the case this week by promoting Georgens to president and COO.
Georgens has the right credentials for a CEO of a large storage company. He served in that capacity with LSI’s Engenio storage unit, and spent 11 years with EMC before that. He was responsible for scouting out acquisition possibilities at NetApp, so he knows the industry. But perhaps where he stands out most among NetApp execs is he brings an outsider’s perspective. Of the top eight Net App execs, two (Dave Hitz and James Lau) founded the company in 1992, three (Warmenhoven, Tom Mendoza and Rob Salmon) joined in 1994, another (Ed Deenihan) came aboard in 2000 and CFO Steve Gomo signed on in 2002.
That’s a lot of experience – all with one company. Yet Georgens, a relative NetApp rookie with barely two years with the vendor – was the one promoted from VP of product operations to COO/president.
To make room, NetApp made former president Mendoza vice chairman. That’s a promotion, too, and Mendoza is truly considered “an icon and a legend” inside NetApp, as Warmenhoven described him in the release announcing the management changes. But the old guard will likely make way for Georgens when Warmenhoven steps down. Now it’s a question of when.
One financial analyst who follows NetApp suspects it could be within a year, and expects it will definitely come by mid-2009.
“It is obvious that they are grooming Georgens to be the next CEO,” the analyst said. “It could be six months, or it could be 12 months. I feel confident it will be less than 18 months [before Warmenhoven steps down].”
At Engenio, Georgens dreamed of becoming CEO of a public storage company before parent LSI pulled the plug on plans to spin off Engenio with an IPO. Georgens promptly left, and NetApp scooped him up within months. Now it looks like he’ll get his wish after all.
Xiotech put out an intriguing press release yesterday, headlined “IT MANAGERS EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT STORAGE SCALABILITY AND CAPACITY.” It discusses survey results from end users establishing that reliability is a key feature when considering storage systems (I personally prefer the ones that crash all the time, but maybe that’s just me), and an ominous quote from Xiotech’s CTO:
“The industry is on pace for a data storage crisis in the next few years,” predicts Steve Sicola, chief technology officer at Xiotech. “The cost of adding a gigabyte of storage is dropping nicely every year, but the cost of managing, protecting and servicing that storage continues to grow. Drives are the most numerous constituent of data centers, and with that have the largest probability of failure. If demand for storage continues at the expected pace and nothing is done, we may see a significant increase in data loss and accelerating cost inefficiencies.”
Thinking Xiotech may have joined Carnegie Mellon University and Google in blowing the whistle on drive reliability specs produced by manufacturers, I hopped on the phone with Sicola this morning. The call began with compelling candor. “Drive makers and systems vendors may say all drives are standard, but they don’t all talk the same way,” Sicola said. “People don’t see the problems that are already happening because big systems houses are trying to make money on both the front-end and the back-end.”
So are we saying that big systems vendors are covering for drive manufacturers even more than the Carnegie-Mellon or Google reports already led us to believe? Was there a heretofore undiscovered problem with drives Xiotech wants to warn us about? “It’s not one specific problem with drives, it’s when you add up a lot of drives in one system that you have a higher potential for failures, and more time spent addressing drive failures,” Sicola clarified. Ah. Hasn’t storage growth been raising the potential for failures over the last couple of years? Isn’t this why we have RAID 6 and clustered systems and. . . .
That’s when we got to the heart of the matter. Xiotech is also coming out with an approach to addressing storage growth, built on IP acquired from Seagate’s Advanced Storage Architecture (ASA) group in November. This itself isn’t news, either. We covered that acquisition when it happened.
Now thinking that the press release was a lead-in to a deeper discussion about what ASA will do and how Xiotech is developing it, I began asking questions along those lines. To my surprise, at that point, you’d have thought I had initiated this call, with the goal of getting Xiotech to divulge trade secrets. No comment, no comment, no comment. No comment on what specifically ASA will do to provide better storage reliability, no comment on when we’ll see ASA released by Xiotech, beyond “later this year.”
“So,” I asked, “until that happens, isn’t Xiotech one of those systems vendors making money on unreliable back-ends, too?”
“We see this problem really exploding in the next few years,” Sicola clarified again. “Xiotech has done a lot today to ensure balanced configurations and has limited the size of its systems. I’d be more concerned about big systems vendors like EMC and Hitachi that are packing in so many drives, which is like trying to herd 1000 cats.”
So to review, the news today seems to be that Xiotech is eventually coming to the rescue of PB-plus shops dealing with reliability issues. Sometime soon-ish. As to how they’ll rescue you. . .well, you’ll find out when they get here. Hopefully.
I was talking with a friend the other day about the prospect of multi-terabyte hard drives and how painful it would be to lose that much data. My friend — being my friend of course — countered that it’s not the amount of data, but where it resides and what the data is that’s important.
For instance, he went on, the EEPROM on your desktop motherboard isn’t more than 2MB worth of data. Yet without it the bazillion hours of work you have stored on your desktop hard drive, while safe and sound, is still useless to you because you can’t access it because your computer won’t boot.
After conceding the point, I rephrased the statement to emphasize the loss of multiple terabytes of data residing on a platter-based spinning medium, located in a computer or computer-like device providing data storage services to said computer, group of computers, or computer-like devices (whew!).
Without blinking an eye, he said he’d started a hard drive data recovery company. He built a clean room and had been perfecting his recovery skills on hard drives purchased on, all of places, eBay. As an aside, use a hammer and nail, or Sawzall, to properly delete all data from unwanted hard drives you dispose of.
A while back, I got a frantic call from a family member whose laptop hard drive had crashed. She was beside herself because on her hard drive were all the digital photos she’d ever taken. . .ALL of them. She’d meant to back up her stuff to a disk but never got around to it. She wanted to know was there anything I could do to help her.
That is when it hit me full force, I have brilliant and baleful friends.
My friend recovered almost all the data from her hard drive for me (at a very reasonable price) and now she has the first pictures of her child, some of her wedding photos and other very important moments in her life back, and on DVD this time. The whole saga got me thinking: Am I really protected from a hard drive crash? How about the executives I support? What would I do if my array at home failed where I have all of my photos!
Seeing the look on my relative’s face when I presented her with all of her photos was priceless. But it got me thinking about all the other people out there in the SMB world with the 0.5 person IT shop who don’t even know these services exist, much less who can afford the super-high cost of traditional data recovery. I don’t think today’s data protection schemes are going to be able to handle the eventuality of these super-sized drives making their way to the same SMB shops.
Do the math. A decent 100Mb pipe can push about 3TB an hour (this takes into account -25% for packet and transmission overhead). If you had three people with a terabyte drive, you’d saturate a 100MB uplink should they decide to back up to a device on the network. How are we going to back that up? The storage SaaS startups making their way to market aren’t going to be able to keep up either. Imagine backing up 400-700GB over your home Internet link where your upstream bandwidth is only 768Kbps.
I saw this coming a bit back when I got my grubby hands on the Hitachi Terabyte drive and have begun using a combination of VMware Player and VMware Workstation to mitigate my issues with capacious storage at home. I essentially virtualize the machine I want to use and deploy that on top of a generic OS install, replete with a pretty icon (in my case, Debian Linux), instructing the user to launch the player as their “desktop.” I’ll eventually get to a point where I will move upward from Player to Workstation for all my machines (right now cost is limiting me to using player for most of my machines), then run snapshots and back up the snaps to the same location as the original VMDK using RSync.
It sounds like a lot of work, but try explaining to your wife that she’s lost all her projects she’s been working on and you don’t have a recent backup because her drive is too big to back up quickly. You’ll appreciate the effort that much more when you can say, “I’ve got you covered, hon!!”
Here’s the visual I use when I explain this concept.
1) Fold a piece of paper four times (or use a folded napkin)
1a) Imagine the paper (napkin) as your physical hard drive
2) Tear off two or three 1-inch pieces of that napkin. Put them on the table next to the napkin.
2a) Imagine those pieces as virtual hard drives or volumes.
3) Reorder those 1-inch pieces of the napkin. Easy, isn’t it?
4) Peel apart the layers of those 1-inch pieces, 4x as much stuff to manipulate, making it take a little longer to move things around the table, no?
4a) Imagine those layers as individual files.
Take this one step further. Blow a soft puff of air at the three 1-inch pieces before you peel them apart (this works best with the napkin as they are slightly “stuck” together). Think of that puff of air as a failure or some sort of issue with storage. Do the same when you’ve peeled apart the pieces.
Now you have a great way to envision how your task of managing individual files (family photos) on a gargantuan hard drive (look how much napkin you have left!!). Multiply that out by a couple of napkins and you see why all of a sudden this problem of failed drives and how to protect against it becomes really hard in the TB-drive world. This can open eyes at the management level. It puts a real and appropriate understanding of why we as storage admins freak out at times when they refuse to allocate budget.
I started out talking about the advent of huge drives and what are you going to do to get the data back should they fail? I’ve developed my own solution to protect myself using some free and not-so-free tools from VMware, but I’m not sure it would scale well, or be easily manageable. Maybe a small challenge to the hardcore virtualizers out there may be in order. . . .
It seems crazy, and in many ways it is. The company that essentially created the hottest market in IT has said it will grow 50% over the next year, and the company that owns it has projected $15 billion in revenues for 2008. And yet as of this morning, Company #1, VMware, has seen its stock drop 33%. Company #2, storage giant EMC, has seen its stock drop $1.02, to $15.89.
The problem, ESG analyst Brian Babineau points out, is that VMware grew 90% last year–it’s not that 50% growth is bad, it’s that 50% growth is relatively bad. “You’ll get the airbag on that stop,” is the expression I’ve heard used.
Meanwhile, the consensus is that EMC’s poor stock performance is a direct result of the VMware issue–even though EMC has achieved its goals of folding in a dizzying array of acquisitions, balancing its revenue streams across software, services and its core storage hardware business, and bringing its products up to speed with emerging technology trends. . .even getting out ahead of them with the first Tier 1 array, DMX-4, to support flash drives internally. “I don’t know that EMC’s business execution could have been much better,” is how Brian put it to me yesterday in my story on EMC’s earnings call.
And yet these companies both are in trouble on the stock market today, and more alarming is the underlying reason: a dramatic slowdown in revenue predicted for VMware. If this truly comes to pass, it could be the darkest omen yet in the chain-reaction brought about in the market by the subprime mortgage crisis, the culmination of fears about the tech market in general this year that began when Cisco revised predictions downward in November. The general vibe from the financial eggheads seems to be that if the highest-flying tech company on the market is forecasting a slowdown in spending, what’s next?
I’ll admit this scares me a little too. The way I understand it, greedy bankers gave loans to unqualified people, and then those shaky loans in turn were carved up into securities, meaning that when those unqualified debtors couldn’t manufacture money (lo and behold!) the whole house of cards started to tumble down. In a way, it’s satisfying to see the people who played on the dreams of low-income people to own homes by locking them into high-interest-rate deals, with no regard to how they were going to come up with the cash, get their comeuppance. But when it threatens the entire national economy, it’s hardly worth the last word.
But before I could step off the ledge into panic myself, this morning I had a chat with Andrew Reichman of Forrester Research, whose level-headed perspective is one I think will eventually shake out once the initial frenzy is over. Or, at least, I hope.
“This is typical of the financial world–overblown expectations,” he said. “I still see VMware’s product and outlook as very strong.” Even in a recession, Reichman pointed out, VMware still has a value proposition, since server virtualization is a consolidation and cost-cutting play. “They can still demonstrate to companies why they should spend money on their product even as they try to put the brakes on IT spending otherwise.”
Great point. Then there’s just the plain fact that 50% growth ain’t too shabby! Especially as the market braces for a spending slowdown–and especially when analysts say 60% of the market has already purchased and deployed VMware’s product. “It’s rare in the technology world to see such consensus around one piece of technology,” Reichman concurred. “They’ve built up a lot of momentum and there’s still a lot of room for them to take advantage of the ‘network effect’ and expand existing customers’ use of the product.”
However, Reichman had another suggestion about the VMware situation that piqued my interest, especially given my recent post on storage virtualization and VMware and the sometimes tense relationships between the two. “What they need to do to continue their growth is take the money they got in the IPO and they’ve built up in revenue and find the next frontier.”
Reichman’s prediction for that next frontier in the near future is business continuity/disaster recovery, which VMware has already said it’s working on. “There’s a high level of interest at a lot of companies in using VMware for BC/DR,” he said. But he added that the next horizon will probably be primary storage–or storage virtualization.
“The story of storage behind VMware has never been clear,” Reichman said. “There are a lot of issues that remain around storage virtualization, performance and compatibility and a lot of room to improve that picture.”
He continued, “They’ve played Switzerland for a long time. Now they need to get off the dime and make a call about how storage is going to work behind server virtualization.”
Of course, it’s hard to tell what the consequences of that might be. Other analysts such as the Burton Group’s Chris Wolf have pointed out that if hardware vendors don’t support VMware, end users won’t take the risk of using their product. But has VMware’s ascension into a Wall Street bellwether changed that equation? Has its ubiquity in IT shops turned the tables on the storage vendors–so that end users will instead be less inclined to use a storage technology if it’s not certified with VMware? How will this balance-of-power play out?
It’s like that expression about the old Chinese curse. We are living in interesting times.
I can hardly call myself a storage geek–I don’t know a MAC address from a Macintosh and couldn’t operate a CLI with a gun to my head. So it’s rare I take a personal interest, the way Tory does, in most of the products or trends I cover.
The one exception to that is the idea of digital preservation. This is probably because, unlike a true storage geek, I don’t have to worry about trying to fix a machine that’s broken or trying to throttle my service engineers. So I have time on my hands to think about the long-term future of data, data storage, and what we’re going to do with all the important records that are currently being converted from physical format to digital. Spinning disk still has nothing on a cave painting, data tapes have nothing on an acid-free paper book, and in 100 years, we might have an unprecedented historical problem: how to preserve our culture and our information for future generations.
That’s the kind of thing you don’t have to be able to architect a storage fabric to be affected by. Every living person has a vested interest in how the human race will pass on knowledge and information over the long haul.
The problem is, those of us with the time to think about this stuff aren’t the ones who know how to answer that question, and the ones with the know-how are too busy putting out day-to-day fires in their data centers to worry about how it’s all going to work when they’re long gone.
And who says it’s their (your) responsibility anyway? Shouldn’t institutions like the National Archives be the ones worrying about it? Shouldn’t the storage vendors be the ones developing the right media for long-term storage?
As of this week, there’s finally a publicly-funded consortium at least trying to find the answer to those questions about digital preservation, all leading up to the biggest mystery of them all: Who’s going to pay for it?
The consortium, known as the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Digital Preservation, was launched by the National Science Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in partnership with the Library of Congress, the Joint Information Systems Committee of the United Kingdom, the Council on Library and Information Resources, and the National Archives and Records Administration. The consortium, headed up by academics from the San Diego Supercomputing Center, will attempt to bring together testimony from a variety of sources — consumer and enterprise, vendor and end-user — to arrive at a sustainable economic model for digital preservation.
The group has been funded for a two-year project. The first year of the project, according to Francine Berman, Director, San Diego Supercomputer Center and High Performance Computing Endowed Chair, UC San Diego, and co-Chair of the Blue Ribbon Task Force, will produce a report on “a survey of what we know.” The initial report will feature case studies and opinions from experts in digital preservation, and is expected to appear by the end of 2008 or early 2009. By 2010, the task force hopes to have a second report suggesting an approach to digital preservation that’s the most cost-effective and logistically feasible for the most people.
It’s all a little loosey-goosey, Berman admitted, saying, “These are open questions.” So far the group doesn’t have much idea what its direction will be. Alternatives for economic models that will be taken into consideration include an iTunes-like pay-per-use model; a privatized model relying on corporations to finance preservation; or a public-goods model that preserves digital records the same way public parks are preserved, through a collective public trust.
Further complicating matters, “there won’t be a one-size-fits-all solution to the digital preservation question,” according to Berman. Consumers will be concerned with preserving family photos, for example, which will be an entirely different process from preserving corporate and government records. Preserving digitally-recorded works of art and multimedia files will be yet another issue to resolve.
Personally, I’m a little reluctant to put much stock in a government study until I see it produce actionable results, and as a taxpayer I’m not nuts about the number of studies my hard-earned dollars go to that just tell us things we already know. But in this case, I’m just happy someone’s thinking about it. And maybe getting others to start thinking about it a little more, too.
Raising awareness is another goal for the task force, Berman confirmed. “My dry cleaner knows what global warming is, and could also probably give you a basic definition of the human genome,” she said. “What we’re looking for is that same level of understanding about digital preservation, which also affects us all.”