Forrester Research has new research findings titled [Consolidate Storage Vendors To Reduce Complexity
]. Here's an excerpt from their executive summary,
"Our survey data shows that over the past 12 months, more firms have bought their storage from a single vendor. While this might not be for everyone, it's worth serious consideration for your environment. Maybe you won't get the best price per gigabyte every time, but you'll probably save money in the long run because of simpler management, increased staff specialization, increased capacity utilization, and better customer service."
Dave Raffo, over at Storage Soup, comments on this in his post[Primary storage still means one vendor]. Here's an excerpt:
A Forrester survey of 170 companies ranging from SMBs to large enterprises in North America and Europe found that more than 80 percent bought their primary storage from one vendor over the last year. That includes 64 percent of the companies with more than 500 TB of raw storage.
The report, written by analyst Andrew Reichman, says using more than one primary storage vendor can make it more complex to manage, provision and support the storage environment. And while using multiple vendors can often bring better pricing, buying from one vendor can result in volume discounts.
“You may have tried to contain costs by forcing multiple incumbent vendors to continuously compete against each other, with price as the primary differentiator,” Reichman writes. “This strategy can reduce prices and limit vendor lock-in, but it can also lead to management complexity and poor capacity utilization.”
The report recommends keeping things simple by and using fewer vendors when possible. However, that advice comes with several caveats: buying all storage from one vendor means taking the bad with the good, and some vendors’ product families differ so much “they may as well come from different vendors.”
As if by coincidence, fellow blogger from EMC Chuck Hollis gives his reflections on this same topic. Here's an excerpt:
When it comes to buying storage (or any infrastructure technology, for that matter), there seem to be two camps:
- Best-of-breed (i.e. multivendor): -- buy what's best, get the best price, keep all the vendors on their toes, etc. etc.
- Single vendor: primarily use one vendor's offerings, and hold them accountable for the outcome.
If Chuck had said "multivendor" versus "single vendor", then that would have been a true dichotomy, but interestinglyhe equates best-of-breed with a multivendor approach. Let's consider two examples:
- Disk from one vendor, Tape from another
Here is a multivendor strategy, and if you have a clear idea of what best-of-breed means to you, then you couldpick the best disk in the market, and the best tape in the market. However, I don't think this keeps either vendor"on their toes", or helps you negotiate lower prices by threatening to switch to the other vendor. In shops likethis, the staffing usually matches, so there are disk administration and tape operations, with little or no overlap, andlittle or no interest in retraining to use a new set of gear. It is true that disk-based VTL could be used where real tape libraries are used, but this may not be enough to threaten your existing vendors that you will switch all your disk to tape, or all your tape to disk.
One could argue that the vendor that sells the besttape could be the exact same vendor that sells the best disk. In this case, your multivendor strategy would actuallywork against you, forcing you away from one of your best-of-breed choices.
- Disk and Tape from one vendor for some workloads, Disk and Tape from another vendor for other workloads
Here is a different multivendor strategy. Having disk and tape for the same vendor allows you to take advantageof possible synergies. The IT staff knows how to use the products from both vendors. This strategy does let you keep your vendors "on their toes". You can legitimately threaten to shift your budget from one vendor over another.However, whatever your definition of best-of-breed is, chances are the product from one vendor is, and the other vendor is not. Both meet some lowest common denominator, meeting some minimum set of requirements, which would allow you to swap out one for the other.
I guess I look at it differently. The equipment in your data center should be thought of as a team. Do your servers, storage and software work well together?
While Americans like to celebrate the accomplishments of individual musicians, athletes or executives, it is actually bands that compete against other bands, sports teams that compete against other sport teams, and companies that compete against other companies. Teamwork in the data center is not just for the people who work there, but also for the IT equipment. Just as a new incoming athlete may not get along well with teammates, shiny new equipment may not get along with your existing gear. Conversely, your existing infrastructure may not let the talents or features of your new equipment shine through.
Putting together the best parts from different teams might serve as a great diversion for those who enjoy["fantasy football"], it may not be the best approach for the data center. Instead, focus on managing your data center as a team, perhaps with theuse of IBM TotalStorage Productivity Center to minimize the heterogeneity of your different equipment. Pick an ITvendor that sells "team players" for your servers, storage and software, with broad support for interoperability and compatibility.
technorati tags: Forrester Research, Dave Raffo, Andrew Reichman, EMC, Chuck Hollis, fantasy football, IBM, TotalStorage, Productivity Center
The "Storage Symposium Mexico - 2008" conference was a great success this week!
Day 1 - The plan was for me to arrive for the Wednesday night reception. Eachattendee was given a copy of my latest book[Inside System Storage: Volume I] and I was planning to sign them. I thought perhaps we should have a "book signing" tablelike all of the other published authors have.
Things didn't go according to plan. Thunderstorms at the Mexico City airport forced our pilot to find an alternate airport. Nearby Acapulco airport was the logical choice, but was full from all the otherflights, so the plane ended up in a tiny town called McAllen, Texas. I did not arrive until the morning of Day 2,so ended up signing the books throughout Thursday and Friday, during breaks and meals, wherever they couldfind me!
Special thanks to fellow IBMer Ian Henderson who picked me up from the airport at such an awkward hour anddrive me all the way to Cuernavaca!
Day 2 - The event venue is the beautiful Japanese-theme[Camino Real Sumiya Hotel] in Cuernavaca, Mexico.
|All of us, IBMers, Business Partners and clients alike, all donned black tee-shirtswith a white eightbar logo for a group photo with one of those "wide lens" cameras. While we werebeing assembled onto the bleachers, I took this quick snapshot of myself and some of the guys behind me.|
I was original scheduled to be first to speak, but with my flight delays, was moved to a time slot after lunch.After a big Mexican lunch, the conference coordinators were afraid the attendees might fall asleep,a Mexican tradition called [siesta], so I wasinstructed to WAKE THEM UP! Fortunately, my topic was Information Lifecycle Management, a topicI am very passionate about, since my days working on DFSMS on the mainframe. With 30percent reduction in hardware capital expenditures, 30 percent reduction in operational costs, and typical payback periods between 15 to 24 months, the presentation got everyone's attention.
|Of course, a lot happens outside of the formal meetings. We had a Japanese theme dinner, where we woreJapanese Hachimaki [headbands]with the eightbar logo. For those not familiar with Japanese culture, hachimaki are worn today not so much for the practical purpose to catch the perspiration but rather for mental stimulation to express one's determination. Some students wear hachimaki when they study to put themselves in the right spirit and frame of mind.|
Shown here are presenters Mike Griese (Infrastructure Management with IBM TotalStorage Productivity Center),Dave Larimer (Backup and Storage Management with IBM Tivoli Storage Manager), myself, and John Hamano(Unified Storage with IBM System Storage N series).
Day 3 - Wrapping up the week, I presented two more times.
First, I covered IBM Disk Virtualization with IBM SAN Volume Controller. One interesting question was if the SAN Volume Controller could be made to looklike a Virtual Tape Library. I explained that this was never part of the original design, but that if you wantto combine SVC with a VTL into a combined disk-and-tape blended solution, consider using theIBM product called Scale-Out File Services[SoFS] which I covered in my post[Moredetails about IBM clustered scalable NAS].
|During one of the breaks, I took a picture of the behind-the-scenes staff that put this together. They had created these huge blocks representing puzzle pieces, emphasizing how IBM is one of the few ITvendors that can bring all the pieces together for a complete solution.|
Shown hereare Mike Griese (presenter), Cyntia Martinez, Claudia Aviles, Cesar Campos (IBM Business Unit Executive forSystem Storage in Mexico), and Claudia Lopez. Each day the staff wore matching shirts so that it was easyto find them.
Later, I covered Archive and Compliance Solutions to highlight our complete end-to-end set of solutions.When asked to compare and contrast the architectures of the IBM System Storage DR550 with EMC Centera, I explainedthat the DR550 optimizes the use of online disk access for the most recent data. For example, if you aregoing to keep data for 10 years, maybe you keep the most recent 12 months on disk, and the rest is moved,using policy-based automation, to a tape library for the remaining nine years. This means that the disk insidethe DR550 is always being used to read and write the most recent data, the data you are most likely to retrievefrom an archive system. Data older than a year is still accessible, but might take a minute or two for the tapelibrary robot to fetch.The EMC Centera, on the other hand, is a disk-only solution. It offers no option to move older data to tape,nor the option to spin-down the drives to conserve power. It fills up after the same 12 months or so, and then you get towatch it the remaining nine years, consuming electricity and heating your data center.
I don't know about you, butI have never seen anyone purposely put in "space heaters" into their data center, but certainly a full EMC Centeradoes little else. Both devices use SATA drives and support disk mirroring between locations, but IBM DR550 offers dual-parity RAID-6, and supports encryption of the data on both the disk and the tape in the DR550. EMC Centerastill uses only RAID-5, and has not yet, as far as I know, offered any level of encryption. IBM System StorageDR550 was clocked at about three times faster than Centera at ingesting new archive objects over a 1GbE Ethernet connection.
|This last photo is me and fellow IBMer Adriana Mondragón. She was one of my students in the [System Storage Portfolio Top Gun class],last February in Guadalajara, Mexico.She graduated in the top 10 percent of her group, earning her the prestigious titleof "Top Gun" storage sales specialist.|
The conference wrapped up with a Mexican lunch with a traditional Mariachi band. I took pictures, but figured you allalready know what [Mariachi players] look like, and I didn't wantto detract from the otherwise serious tone of this blog post! This was the first System Storage Symposium in Mexico, butbased on its success, we might continue these annually.
technorati tags: IBM, Storage Symposium, Mexico, Cuernavaca, McAllen, Texas, Ian Henderson, Camino Real, Sumiya, Hachimaki, Mike Griese, Dave Larimer, John Hamano, SVC, VTL, SOFS, NAS, TSM, TotalStorage, Productivity Center, Cyntia Martinez, Claudia Aviles, Cesar Campos, Claudia Lopez, archive, compliance, DR550, NENR, EMC, Centera, SATA, RAID-5, RAID-6, encryption, Adriana Mondragon, Top Gun, Guadalajara,
I owe an apology to Mark O'Gara and his colleagues at Highmark for my post last week [Which is greener, Real or Virtual Tape?
Last week's focus was on tape libraries, both virtual and real, leading up to our IBM announcement ofacquiring Diligent Technologies. I was focused on HDS blogger Hu Yoshida's post about his conversation with Mark,who was on an expert panel about these topics. Mark discovered that of the top energy consumersin his datacenter, his tape library was in the top five, a surprising result. Hu suggested that switching to a VTL with deduplicationtechnology was a potential alternative, and I pointed to a whitepaper from the Clipper Group that suggested otherwise.
My response was that perhaps Highmark's choice of backup software was poorly written, or that they had set it up with thewrong parameters, and just changing hardware might not be the right answer. I went too far given that I didn't know which software they had, which parameters theywere using, or which tape technology was involved. This came across wrong. I meant to poke fun at Hu's response.I did not mean to imply that Mark and his staff hadmade poor choices, or that they should automatically reject Hu's advice to consider other hardware alternatives.
I have discussed the situation with Mark, and agree that I should know his situation better before offeringsuggestions of my own.
Again, I'm sorry Mark.
technorati tags: Mark O'Gara, Highmark, Green, Real, Virtual, Tape, VTL, deduplication, HDS, Hu Yoshida
I made it a point NOT to be in an airplane on "Earth Day" yesterday.
Today, I am posting this from the Houston Airporton my way down to Cuernavaca, Mexico to participate in the Storage Symposium 2008 Mexico, April 24-25, 2008.
We have a list of speakers presenting on various topics. I will be covering IBM's leadership in thefollowing areas:
- Information Lifecycle Management (ILM)
- Archive and Compliance Solutions
- Disk storage virtualization
For those interested in the USA, there will be the [IBM System Storage and Storage Networking Symposium] in San Diego, California, July 14-18, 2008. Registration opened today!
And, it's not too late to sign up for IBM Tivoli's [Pulse 2008] conference that will be heldin Orlando, Florida, May 18-22, 2008. I'll be there Sunday and Monday only, in the Tivoli Storage track, so if you are planning to attend and wish to meet up with me while I am there, please send me a note!
technorati tags: IBM, Cuernavaca, Mexico, Storage, Symposium, San Diego, Pulse08, Orlando, Florida, Tivoli
Normally, IBM only makes announcements on Tuesdays, but today, Friday, IBM announces that it acquired Diligent Technologies. What? I got a lot ofquestions about this, so I thought I would start with this...
When I posted in January that[IBM Acquires XIV],fellow EMC blogger Mark Twomey of StorageZilla fame, sent me a comment:
"Ah now Tony I wasn't poking fun. Indeed I find it fascinating that Moshe who's been sitting out on the fringes for years having been banished for being an obstructionist to EMC entering the mid-market is now back.
Which reminds me what happens with Diligent? There his as well aren't they or has he packed his stake in that in?"
As you might have guessed, I am privy to a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes at IBM that I can't talk about in this blog, and all these rumors in the blogosphere about IBM acquisition of Diligent was a topic I couldn't officially recognize, defend or deny, until official IBM announcements were made.
In his latest post, Mark wonders about[the last Tape and Mainframe sales person on earth]. He recounts my interaction with fellow HDS blogger Hu Yoshia about the energy benefits ofVirtual Tape Libraries. Knowing that we were going to announcement IBM's acquisition of Diligent soon, I thoughtthis would be a worthy exchange, driving up the sales of Diligent boxes (whether you buy them from IBM or HDS).Diligent already had reselling arrangements with HDS, and IBM plans to continue thosearrangements going forward with HDS. As I have explained before in my post [Supermarketsand Specialty Shops], IBM and HDS cater to different customers, so if a customer who wants the best technologyfrom a specialty shop, they can buy IBM Diligent products from HDS, but if they want one-stop shopping, they can buyIBM Diligent directly from IBM or its other IBM Business Partners.
(Perhaps a more tricky situation is that Diligent also had an arrangement with Sun Microsystems, which competesdirectly against IBM as another IT supermarket vendor, but I have not heard how IBM has decided to handle thisgoing forward.)
For more on this intricate mess of interconnected companies, alliances and partnerships, read Dave Raffo's article[Data dedupe dance cardfilling up] over at Storage Soup.
So, let's tackle the first question:
- Q1. What will happen to IBM's real tape library business?
Come on! IBM is Number one in tape, we've had virtual tape libraries since 1997 (the first in the industry)and continue to do well in both virtual and real tape libraries. Both provide value to the customer, and bothhave their place as part of the overall "information infrastructure". This acquisition provides yet another choicefor clients on our "supermarket" shelf.
(For those following the ["which is greener"] discussion, the robot of the IBM TS3500 real tape library consumes185W per frame (when moving) and each tape drive consumes 50W (when actively working on a tape). Compared to 13W per SATA disk drive, each 6-drive frame of a TS3500 consumes as much electricity as 37 SATA disk drives. If you are not running backups 24x7, the total KWh per day for your tape library is actually quite less, but as several people have pointed out, there are customers that do run backups 80-90 percent of the time. LTO-4 tapes can hold 800GB uncompressed, and SATA disk are now available in 1TB (1000 GB) size, so you can have fun with your own comparisons.)
Meanwhile, Scott Waterhouse, one of the few people at EMC who understand tape workloadslike backup and archive, takes me to task in his Backup Blog
with his post[I want a Red Ferrari
].For those who are surprised that anyone at EMC might understand backup workloads, EMC did acquire a company calledLegato, and perhaps Scott came from that acquisition. I've never met Scott in person, but based solely only fromhis writings, he seems to know his stuff and makes strong arguments for using IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) with deduplication and virtual tape libraries.
While TSM does a good job of "deduplicating" at the client first, backing up only changed data, Scott feels database and email repositories must be backed up entirely each time, which is what happens in many other backup software products. Some clients might have 80 percent database/email and only 20 percent files, while others might have less than 20 percent database/email and 80 percent files, so this might influence whether deduplication will have small or big benefit.If TSM has to backup the entire database, even though little has changed since the last backup, that is where deduplication on a virtual tape library can come in handy. For IBM DB2 and Oracle databases, IBM TSM application-aware Tivoli Data Protection module interface backs up only changed data, not the entire file. Thanks to IBM's FilesX acquisition-- (also coincidently from Israel) --IBM can extend this support now to SQL Server databases as well.However, to be fair, Scott is partly correct, TSM does backup some database and email repositories in their entirety, which is why it is a good idea to have BOTH an IBM virtual tape library with deduplication and Tivoli Storage Manager to handle all cases. This brings us to the next question:
- Q2. What will happen to IBM's patented "progressive backup" technology?
IBM will continue to use TSM's progressive backup technology. TSM already works great with Diligent virtual tapelibraries. One example is LAN-free backup. In this configuration, the TSM client writes its backups directly toa virtual or real tape library, over the SAN, and then sends the list of files backed up to the TSM server over theLAN to record in its database. This can greatly reduce IP traffic on your LAN during peak backup periods. For more about this, see the IBM Redbook titled["Get More Out of Your SAN with IBM Tivoli Storage Manager"].
Jon Toigo from DrunkenData asks[Did IBM Do Due Diligence Before Making Diligent Acquisition a Done Deal?] which is probably always a valid question. Unlike XIV, I wasn't part of the Diligent acquisition team, so I can't provide first hand account of the process. I am told that the IBM team did all the right things to make sure everything is going to turn out right.Sadly, many companies that make acquisitions in the IT industry fail to make them work. Fortunately, IBM is one of the few companies that has a great success record, with over 60 acquisitions in the past six years.In the Xconomy forum, Wade Rousch writes[IBM and the Art of Acquisitions]and gives some insight why IBM is different. Jon did not understand why Cindy Grossman, IBM VP of tape and archive solutions, ran the analyst conference call for this announcement, which brings me to the next question:
- Q3. What is Diligent virtual tape library going to be categorized as, a disk system or a tape system?
IBM organizes its storage systems based on the host application workloads.Products to address disk workloads (SVC, DS8000 series, DS6000 series, DS4000 series, DS3000 series, N series, XIV Nextra) are in our disk systems group. Storage that appears to host applications like a tape system to address workloads like backup and archive (tape drives, libraries and tape virtualization) are in our tape and archive group. IBM Diligent has two products, one for big workloads and one for medium workloads. Both look liketape systems, so our tape and archive team, who understand tape workloads like backup and archive the best, are obviously the best choice to support IBM Diligent in the mix.
Some might remember that IBM already has deduplication in its IBM N series products, called Advanced Single InstanceStorage, or A-SIS. Here is an[IBM System Storage N Series A-SIS Deduplication Deployment and Implementation Guide. This brings up the fourth question:
- Q4. What will happen to N series A-SIS feature?
IBM will offer both N series and Diligent deduplication capabilities. For disk workloads, IBM N series offers a post-process deduplication feature at no additional charge. For tape workloads, IBM will now offer an in-line deduplication feature with Diligent Technologies. Different workloads, different offerings.
As with any acquisition, there will be some changes. The 100 folks from Diligent will get to learn the IBM wayof doing things. This brings me to our fifth and final question:
- Q5. What is the correct spelling: deduplication or de-duplication?
It appears that Diligent has a corporate-wide standard to hyphenate this term (de-duplication), but the "word police" at IBM that control and standardize all "proper spellings, trademarks, and capitalization" have sent me corporate instructions a few days ago that IBM does not to hyphenate this term (deduplication). So, going forward, it will be "deduplication", or "dedupe" for short.I suspect one of the first tasks that our new IBMers from Diligent will be doing is removing all those hyphens fromthe [Diligent Technologies website]!
That's all for now, I'm off to Chicago, Illinois tomorrow!
technorati tags: IBM, Diligent, acquisition, LOST, EMC, Mark Twomey, Moshe Yanai, Pam West, StorageZilla, HDS, Hu Yoshida, Sun Microsystems, virtual, real, tape library, VTL, SATA, LTO, LTO-4, TS3500, Scott Waterhouse, information infrastructure, email, database, backup, archive, Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, FilesX, SAN, LAN, IP, LAN-free, TSM, Tivoli Storage Manager, XIV, Nextra, A-SIS, Chicago, deduplication, Dave Raffo, dedupe