Qumulo, the file storage startup founded by engineers who designed Isilon’s clustered NAS, closed a $40 million B funding round today and plans its initial product launch “really soon.”
The Seattle-based company now has $67 million in total funding. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) led the B round with participation from existing investors Highland Capital, Madrona Venture Group and Valhalla Partners.
Isilon founder Sujal Patel is also joining Qumulo as a board member, along with Wen Hsieh of KPCB and Matt McIlwain of Madrona.
Qumulo has yet to announce its product, although CEO Peter Godman said it already has paying customers. The funding round will pay for marketing of the product help expand the 90-person company.
Qumulo has been quiet since its initial funding more than two years ago. But Godman said the startup has had products in the field for a year and has delivered software upgrades every few weeks.
“We’ll be launching really soon,” he said. “We see a big difference between when the product becomes available and when we start trying to tell the world about it.”
What does this product do?
Qumulo’s release mentions scale-out NAS, which is what the Isilon team developed and sold to EMC for $2.25 billion in 2010. But Godman said Qumulo sets out to solve a different problem than Isilon.
“In the 2000s we helped people scale storage, but we didn’t scale data,” said Godman, who was director of software engineering at Isilon.
“With Isilon we set out to solve an earlier problem – taking lots of little buckets where you put data and move them into larger buckets to scale. That was the 2000s-era of data storage. But as people began building giant buckets, it became easier to manage storage but no easier to manage data. In fact, it may be harder than ever to manage data and answer questions about it – what do I have, what is growing, what’s valuable to my company, who’s using what, where does that performance go? Isolating the bottleneck may take hours and hours.”
A few more hints from Godman on the product: it includes a file system with some database functionality but not object storage. (“We still see file storage as essential,” he said.) The software is sold primarily on appliances including solid-state drives (SSDs) and Ethernet, but can be sold as software-only.
“Most people dealing with large data sets are buying appliances,” Godman said. ”But we are a software company.”
Quantum had a rough quarter revenue-wise to end 2014 because of poor tape sales, but its prospects are looking up in other areas. StorNext scale-out file system sales increased 77 percent year-over-year and DXi disk backup revenue ticked up five percent.
Quantum CEO Jon Gacek remains enthusiastic about StorNext, which has carved out a stronghold in media and entertainment and is positioned for more growth in surveillance and other video markets. Gacek said 4K video, also known as ultra high definition, will require many broadcast companies to overhaul their systems. He says StorNext, which received a big speed bump with version 5 a little over a year ago, is a good fit for the new standard because it is essential to avoid dropped frames. The 4k video also requires more storage capacity.
The surveillance market is also growing because of legal requirements to keep data. “That’s not a place where we’ve traditionally had success,” Gacek said. “Retention periods were short and you could get away with a cheap NAS box. Now organizations are going to high def and retention periods are much longer. We signed a large police organization in Canada.”
StorNext revenue hit $27 million for the quarter and DXi came in at $24 million, which gives Quantum a shot at reaching more than $100 million annually with both products over this calendar year.
Gacek is also hoping Quantum gets a boost from two partnership deals with NetApp. Quantum has a pilot deal to sell NetApp E-Series disk as part of a StorNext video workflow solution, and a joint sales deal in Europe involving Quantum DXi 6900 and E-Series disk.
Still, tape dragged Quantum’s overall revenue, which at $142 million dropped year-over-year. OEM tape automaton products sold by Dell, Hewlett-Packard and IBM fell 33 percent from the previous year, and Quantum’s branded automation products fell 16 percent.
“We did not see many large deals or the typical budget flush in the form of upgrades or new purchases that we’ve seen in the December quarter in the past,” Gacek said.
Quantum’s overall revenue came in below its guidance and its forecast for this quarter of $130 million to $135 million is down from this quarter but up slightly from $128 million in the same quarter last year.
Gacek said there is not much Quantum can do to spur tape sales through OEM partners, but he said he is optimistic that branded revenue – the bigger piece of the tape pie – will rebound. “We have a lot more control and there is room for improvement there,” he said.
For years, CommVault boasted about how it sold one application that handled all data protection and management needs. That is changing, as its tries to perk up tepid financial growth in a more competitive market.
CommVault CEO Bob Hammer said the one-stop shopping approach still helps with large enterprises, but point solutions are the best way to expand business. That’s not a new strategy – CommVault has already launched the first handful of these bundles. But Hammer said the company is expanding that strategy with a new set of point solutions ahead of the next full release of its Simpana software.
“Transformation” was the word of the day Wednesday on the CommVault earnings call.
“Many of the key elements of our current transformation are now in place and the pace of our transformation is accelerating,” Hammer said in his opening statement. “This transformation is designed to bring us back to historical financial performance in the second half of next fiscal year by implementing pricing, packaging, and distribution changes.”
When he turned it over to CFO Brian Carolan, Hammer promised “more details on our transformation” later in the call.
“Historical performance” for CommVault is year-over-year revenue growth in the 20 percent range, but the vendor hasn’t hit that number in four quarters. CommVault’s revenue of $153 million last quarter was roughly the same as a year ago, barely up from the previous quarter and below Wall Street expectations.
Deals of more than $100,000 in the quarter decreased by 24 percent over the previous year. CommVault’s average enterprise deal price fell from $284,000 a year ago to $248,000 last quarter.
“We’ve focused on the core issues that negatively impacted revenue earnings growth,” Hammer said. Those issues included “the shift in both the market and competition, which required significant changes to the pricing packaging messaging, as well to the go-to-market strategies of our products.”
That’s where the point solutions come in.
Hammer said CommVault in March will launch a cloud gateway for archiving “to all major cloud storage locations,” a disaster recovery manager that will run on Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services (AWS) public clouds, and a cloud DevOps services that will allow developers to create and use virtual machine workloads in the cloud for test/development.
Other products or upgrades in the works include an Edge Drive product that enables online file sharing and collaboration, and a service that can archive data in Office 365 cloud-based mail applications.
“New competitors entered the market with some pretty good standalone solutions, and if there were not alternatives to that, [companies] were willing to deploy them,” Hammer said. “But now we’re giving our customers the best of both worlds, the ability to deploy standalone in certain situations or deploy a unified platform.”
Cloudberry Lab is one of the latest to jump into the crowded file sync-and-share market. The cloud backup provider recently announced its CloudBerry Box, a private and public cloud product that allows end users to store and access files across multiple mobile devices.
Alexander Negrash, marketing director at CloudBerry Lab, said this new solution differs from others currently on the market because it gives users the choice of selecting their preferred cloud provider. Data is moved through direct connections between end-points and the end-users’ cloud storage accounts. The CloudBerry Box software can be deployed in a private cloud with an Amazon S3 or OpenStack compatible interface.
“I doesn’t matter which one you choose. It’s a direct connection between the end-points and the public cloud,” said Negrash. “We don’t process the data or keep the data. You just install the endpoints, then specify the cloud storage you want and select files you want to store.”
The sync-and-share solution can be run through customers’ cloud storage accounts from any of the major cloud vendors, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Storage. Negrash said no third-party web services are used to process data. The CloudBerry Box solution currently is in beta testing and it only supports the Windows operating system, with plans to support Android and iOS.
The solution supports military-grade, user-controlled encryption, so files can be encrypted on the fly with user-created passwords sent to the cloud through secure SSL connections. CloudBerry supports 20 different industry encryptions. Also, synced data is compressed before being sent to the cloud for backups.
CloudBerry is late to the game with its CloudBerry Box. This market has more than 100 vendors with products that have matured beyond simple sharing and syncing data to mobile devices. Many have built-in centralized controls for IT administrators to grant data access and permissions, along with stronger security features and collaboration functions.
Negrash said plans for additional features are on the roadmap.
“This is not about collaboration,” Negrash said. “It’s sync-and-share. Management of user access is done in the cloud storage so the user access is managed on the cloud storage site.”
CloudBerry recently implemented a managed service provider (MSP) offering that allows third-party sellers to rebrand the product and sell it to end users.
“CloudBerry is the white box of sync and share,” Negrash said.
Industry analysts predict the days of standalone sync-and-share products are numbered. They say file sync and share increasingly will become a feature of enterprise products, with the occasional exception of specialized offerings catering to key functionality such as security.
“In the short term, enterprises will need to look at these individual products but treat them as more tactical than strategic because the market is changing very quickly,” said Charles Smulders, managing vice president at Gartner Inc. “It could well be that in two or three years’ time they will be getting their file sync-and-share capabilities from another vendor as part of a broader portfolio.”
EMC CEO and chairman Joe Tucci indicated Thursday that he will stay on after his contract expires next month. Others at EMC won’t be given that option, as the company also said it will cut jobs to reduce expenses.
Tucci’s contract ends in February, which will be here next week. During EMC’s earnings call Thursday Tucci called that contact “a guidepost” rather than a hard stop. He made it clear that he will stay past that date in his current role, and said he will happily remain chairman of federated EMC companies (including VMware and Pivotal) for a longer stretch. Tucci has already postponed his planned retirement several times.
Tucci said his term as CEO could go on “a couple of quarters or a couple of months. Not years. And I said I would look favorably about staying on as an involved chairman beyond that.”
Earlier this month, EMC reached a standstill agreement with activist shareholder Elliott Management, a hedge fund that had pushed EMC to sell off VMware or reorganize. Elliott helped pick two new members of EMC’s board and promised not to “agitate” EMC until September.
EMC executives did not address the restructuring on the earnings call, but EMC filed an SEC statement before the call that said it will spend $130 million to $150 million on staff reduction. The filing did not say how many employees would be affected but said the restructuring would be completed by the end of March.
EMC’s revenue of $7 billion for last quarter and $24.4 billion for the year both fell slightly below Wall Street expectations, as did its guidance of $26.1 billion for 2015. EMC Information Infrastructure – its core storage business – reported $5.36 billion in revenue, up three percent from last year but also below expectations. High-end storage – VMAX – revenue fell 13 percent to $1.19 billion while emerging storage – XtremIO, Isilon and ScaleIO – rose 52% to $800 million.
EMC executives said XtremIO all-flash arrays pulled in nearly $300 million in revenue for the quarter. EMC II CEO David Goulden called it the fastest growing product in EMC history, and said it had a “commanding lead” with 35 percent of the all-flash market share.
By my count, around 70 storage start-up companies were acquired in the past year. That is quite a few acquisitions, although not as many as in some past years. A surge in acquisitions always leads to contemplation about upcoming opportunities for other companies to reach their exit goals. There are different types of acquisitions, which usually depend on the stage that the acquired company is in. While thinking about who could be next, there are basically three types of acquisitions to consider:
1. Technology acquisitions. Some startups begin with new technology and get to a point to prove the technology either by demonstrating it to customers or acquiring paying customers. If the technology shows value, an established company may want to acquire it to fully develop and market the product rather than invest to develop the technology from scratch.
2. Business acquisitions. If a company has reached a maturity level with the product and shown it can grow a business around it, an established company may see an opportunity to fill a hole or add a complementary product to its portfolio. These are usually the larger value (billion-dollar plus) acquisitions that are talked about for years after they have been completed.
3. Competitive acquisitions. These are deals where a vendor eliminates a competitor by absorbing it. The acquiring company will usually deny that is its motive, but these transactions often end with the acquired technology discarded within a few years.
The reason a startup gets acquired often depends on what stage it is in. It could be in the early stage with A and B round financing, delivering their product at the C round, or using money in the D round and beyond to push the product to success. The ability for a startup to be acquired changes with time and the amount of investment.
While there are always surprises, right now the number of companies likely to be acquired seems small. That leads to another discussion about the number of new startups that we will see in 2015. I know of personal acquaintances and industry veterans who have left their companies in the past year and are working in early stages of creating startup companies that should surface this year. These companies are considered in “stealth” mode and require funding to get to point where the ideas are fully formed, an early prototype created, and the core team assembled. From this point, more traditional funding sources can be explored. The stealth mode companies are interesting because they will be the ones to look at for technology acquisitions or the next major successful product.
The number of stealth companies appears low today. The money invested in them may be well spent. Let’s hope that money is not diluted by the price for further investments and the good, new ideas can be realized.
(Randy Kerns is Senior Strategist at Evaluator Group, an IT analyst firm).
Box Inc. had an excellent coming out party as a public company today.
Box priced its initial shares at $14 Thursday. Those shares today opened at $20.20 on the New York Stock Exchange and rose to high of$24.73 before settling to $23.23 at the close. That means Box shares increased about 66 percent on the day. Not a bad showing for a stock that was priced at $14 a share and a company that has yet to show a profit.
“They got the kind of pop that everyone wants with the IPO,” said Terri McClure, senior analyst at Enterprise Strategy Group. “Wall Street is intensely enamored with cool companies. Box has done a great job of promoting its brand and paying attention to different method of file sharing.”
Box raised $175 million on its first day on the stock exchange. It followed a 10-month wait after the company filed its registration for an IPO last year, but found the market was cool to IPOs. In the interim, Box raised $150 million in funding last July from TPG Capital and Coatue Management LLC to give it flexibility on the timing of the IPO.
Box’s total losses have hit $482.7 million during its history, including $121.5 million of losses during the first nine months of 2014. Its revenue for the first nine months of 2014 came to $153.8 million. Despite the losses, Box is showing revenue growth quarter over quarter and the marketing spend is lower than revenue.
“Those two areas are heading in the right direction,” McClure said. “(But) there is no clear path to profitability.”
The company is valued at about $2.7 billion, above the $2.4 billion valuation it received in a July private-funding round. At present, Box is the darling of Wall Street but they still have challenges to overcome. Around 90 percent of its customer-base uses Box’s free consumer product ,so it has to convince enterprise customers that Box can be trusted with their corporate data. Box will face some headwind on that front, especially with all the recent security breaches.
Box needs to expand its user base beyond the United States, said McClure. That has gotten more difficult since the Edward Snowden leak. Box’s service holds both the data and the encryption keys to the data. A good 50 percent of Western European customers have policies in place that restricts them from storing data in the United States.
“We all know that corporations ane skeptical. They want some control and say on where their data is located, ” McClure said. “When we talk to end users, they are looking for hybrid cloud (services). “I do believe that the future is cloud but I don’t think customers are ready for it in their heads. I don’t think that the enterprise is ready for it today.”
Box is further ahead on its security compared to competitors like Dropbox. The company continues to evolve with more content management technology and now is focusing on delivering services to certain vertical, mainly finance and healthcare.
Meanwhile, many are waiting for DropBox, Box’s closest competitor, to file for an IPO.
“Everyone is expecting it to happen within the next year or two,” McClure said.
Newton, Mass.-based Kaminario, which also has offices in Israel, California and New York, had just disclosed $53 million in Series E funding – its highest round to date – in early December. At the time, CEO Dani Golan said the Series E round was oversubscribed, with demand at about $100 million.
Ritu Jyoti, chief product officer at Kaminario, said the company plans to use the additional $15 million to ramp up sales and marketing and to expand geographically. She said the company waited to close on the extra funds until late December because it wanted to be “selective and thoughtful in our investors.”
“We ultimately decided that this new round of funding would be in the best interest for our goals in 2015,” Jyoti said via an email.
In conjunction with the funding news, Kaminario claimed to achieve more than 100% quarter-over-quarter growth in bookings in Q4 2014. The company said its customer roster includes an elite institution of higher learning, a national food distributor and a top federal agency.
Golan has noted that the company targets midrange enterprise customers with revenue run rates of $100 million to $5 billion. He cited his top competitor as Pure Storage. Pure has attracted $470 million in funding to date, including $225 million last year, according to a report from New York-based 451 Research.
“Kaminario was a little bit late to the party but still has prospects, as the VCs obviously still believe,” said Tim Stammers, a senior analyst at 451 Research. “On paper, its products certainly look strong, but it has taken a while to get to this stage.”
Stammers said Kaminario’s first product came out in 2010 and was DRAM powered. He said the company switched to flash in 2011 and continued to make changes the following year, shifting from PCIe flash to SAS-based SSDs and from blade controllers to 1U modular devices. Kaminario didn’t pick up two important data reduction features, deduplication and compression, until last May, he noted.
“They have a scale-out system and they’re making a lot of basic claims about the product that are quite impressive,” said Stammers. “There’s still time for them to make a claim in the flash market. The reason why there is a question mark is because they didn’t get competitive until 2014 when they added dedupe and compression, by which time other suppliers were already making their mark.”
Stammers said Kaminario appeared to focus mainly on North America while other AFA vendors branched into other markets. But, Kaminario noted today its plans to expand into five new regions in Europe.
Golan recently claimed that sales have quadrupled since the May launch of the company’s K2 V5 product. In addition to inline dedupe and compression, Kaminario announced support for thin provisioning at that time. The company also made a public promise to deliver an average of $2 per usable GB with data reduction taken into account.
Kaminario added data-at-rest encryption in December. Golan said at the time that the company would add replication soon.
“They could still make their mark. They’ve got a good story on the product and they’ve got a good price story,” said Stammers. He said investors are betting on a big return, hoping to see sales fast enough to allow Kaminario to file for an IPO. Another possibility is that Kaminario could become an acquisition target, Stammers said.
The prospect of flash drives wearing out is a non-issue, according to NetApp.
Mark Welke, NetApp’s senior director of product marketing, said the company has not had a single solid-state drive (SSD) wear out since it began selling flash with its storage systems in late 2008.
“We’re typically seeing an average of about a 10% lifetime wear for all of the SSDs that we have out there today,” said Welke, during an interview this week with SearchStorage.com. “So, I think that a lot of the hype that was created out there [about SSDs wearing out], it just doesn’t exist.”
The SSD wear-out factor stems from the process of writing data to a NAND flash chip. All of the bits in a flash block must be erased before the write can take place. That program/erase process eventually breaks down the oxide layer that traps the electrons at the floating-gate transistors. The deterioration can distort the manufacturer-set threshold value at which a charge is determined to be a zero or a one and result in errors.
That’s a condensed version of the way experts described the inner workings to me in 2009 when flash was coming into vogue. They said the deterioration was less of a problem with single-level cell (SLC) flash than with multilevel (MLC) flash. The wear-out figures they cited were 100,000 program/erase cycles for SLC, 30,000 for enterprise-grade MLC (eMLC), and 10,000 or possibly as low as 3,000 for MLC.
Welke said NetApp started with SLC SSDs in its FAS systems and followed with varying grades of less expensive multilevel cell (MLC) drives, starting with its EF540 about two years ago. The company doesn’t make its own SSDs. NetApp purchases them from a variety of manufacturers, which have included SanDisk and Toshiba.
NetApp is able to monitor the flash environments of customers through its auto-support capabilities and database. Welke said SSD failures have occasionally happened, but they were not the result of wear-out. They were typically due to SSD firmware issues, which he said have largely been fixed.
“We’re less than 30 seconds downtime per year. There aren’t many failures,” Welke said.
So, is wear-out just a bunch of hype?
Lots of SSD manufacturers worked hard on improvements to product architectures, algorithms and controllers to boost the endurance and reliability of MLC and other flash technologies and help bring down the high cost of solid-state storage in comparison to traditional disk-based systems.
George Crump, president and founder of Storage Switzerland, likened the prospect of SSD wear-out to the impending doom predicted in the year 2000 with computers that stored year values as two digits.
“I made a comment once to a data center guy and said ‘I guess that was no big deal.’ And he looked very sternly at me and said, ‘Well, that’s because a lot of people worked a lot of hours to make sure it wasn’t a big deal,’ ” recalled Crump. “It could have been a very big deal.”
Crump said that not only have flash controller manufacturers gotten very good at handling errors and generally advancing the technology but also flash use cases have changed. He said a small amount of highly expensive flash and memory was often used for caching in the early days, with data constantly moving in and out.
“As that cache area got bigger and bigger, and eventually it led to all-flash, the amount of times that I had to turn data over went down significantly, and therefore, the cause for wear-out minimized,” said Crump.
The fourth quarter of 2014 was tough for solid-state storage vendor SanDisk. Still, the vendor said its enterprise solid-state drive (SSD) sales increased and it remains on track for $1 billion in enterprise SSD revenue in 2015.
SanDisk warned earlier this month that it would miss its revenue target for the quarter. On Wednesday it said its revenue was $1.735 billion, about $100 million below Wall Street expectations. The downfall came on its retail and client SSD products. SanDisk reported strong enterprise sales although it is still early days for its Fusion-io products and its ULLtraDIMM prospects are dim because of a legal issue.
CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said SanDisk’s enterprise SSD revenue grew last quarter, and doubled for the full year over 2013. He said SAS SSDs still led the way with a big bump in CloudSpeed SATA SSDs as well.
He added that SanDisk has completed its integration of PCIe flash pioneer Fusion-io and expects an increase in sales of those products. However, revenue is likely to remain lower in SanDisk’s OEM model than it was for Fusion-io before the acquisition.
SanDisk forecasts total revenue of $6.5 billion to $6.8 billion for 2015, but client SSD sales are expected to decline while enterprise revenue increases.
“Enterprise SSDs will certainly achieve $1 billion in revenue for us in 2015, and we’ll continue to grow in that space in the future,” Mehrotra said. “We have previously articulated our goal to be a number one market share leader in enterprise SSDs, and we are well on our way.”
He said SanDisk has the “broadest [flash] portfolio in the business,” with its SSD, PCIe and software products.
SanDisk’s fledgling UltraDIMM products are stalled now due to a lawsuit involving its memory channel storage card supplier Diablo. Netlist, charging that Diablo Technology infringed its patents to develop its chips, has gained a court injunction to stop Diablo from shipping the chips used in SanDisk ULLtraDIMM products. Diablo has appealed the U.S. District court ruling in federal court, and is hoping to reach a settlement with Netlist before the case goes to trial.
Mehrotra said a settlement must be reached quickly if the ULLtraDIMM platform is to achieve significant sales this year.
“Our ULLtraDIMM expectations in 2015 are fairly small in terms of revenue, as it’s a very new product category and we’re continuing to engage with the customer base,” he said. “But clearly the ULLtraDIMM product category does get impacted by the injunction that we currently have. And that injunction would have to be lifted soon. The legal matter would have to be dissolved soon in order for ULLtraDIMM momentum to begin again, otherwise the sales of ULLtraDIMM would get impacted.”