Inside System Storage -- by Tony Pearson

Tony Pearson Tony Pearson is a Master Inventor and Senior IT Specialist for the IBM System Storage product line at the IBM Executive Briefing Center in Tucson Arizona, and featured contributor to IBM's developerWorks. In 2011, Tony celebrated his 25th year anniversary with IBM Storage on the same day as the IBM's Centennial. He is author of the Inside System Storage series of books. This blog is for the open exchange of ideas relating to storage and storage networking hardware, software and services. You can also follow him on Twitter @az990tony.
(Short URL for this blog: ibm.co/Pearson )
  • Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

Comments (10)

1 thestorageanarchist commented Permalink

Tony, you are an embarrassment to the industry. <div>&nbsp;</div> VMAX has far more than a "few hundred" arrays in the field, and is deployed around the globe supporting the most mission-critical operations of thousands of companies. <div>&nbsp;</div> Granted, VMAX success is challenging to IBM - so I'm not surprised that you continuously resort to FUD rather than differentiation. <div>&nbsp;</div> The fact is, VMAX is the most reliable and highly available Symmetrix in its entire history, and your FUD is based upon data you find in our release notes as I described in this post: <div>&nbsp;</div> http://thestorageanarchist.typepad.com/weblog/2010/06/300 <br /> 5-why-transparency.html

2 thestorageanarchist commented Permalink

By the way, I had tried to honor my own admonishions against attempts to benefit from others mistakes, as I wrote about here: <div>&nbsp;</div> http://thestorageanarchist.typepad.com/weblog/2010/07/3008-shame-on-all-of-us.html <div>&nbsp;</div> In my transparency article, I even avoided specifying which company was trying to use EMC's transparency against us. <div>&nbsp;</div> You've removed any doubt about who has been resorting to this vile and despicable approach to competing with this post. <div>&nbsp;</div> And I must admit, I was shocked by your (misinformed) attacks on EMC about an outage at a state government earlier this year, especially since the bank outage referenced in my above-linked post was caused by your own employer. <div>&nbsp;</div> Your FUD conjours images of pots, kettles and glass houses...

3 TonyPearson commented Permalink

Barry, <br /> <p><br /> Did you miss the paragraph where I mention that IBM itself had similar quality problems a long time ago and had already learned the painful lesson that EMC is learning now? IBM calls them "Client Impact Events" or CIE. The terms and acronyms might be different, but the idea is the same.<br /> </p> <p><br /> I agree that EMC's DMX3 and DMX4 also had quality issues, following the same ship-it-early and fix-it-in-the-field approach. I was trying to be nice to not bring that up, and just focus on your current product.<br /> </p> <p><br /> So, yes, IBM had quality problems in the past and was transparent about them, and EMC has its problems too and is transparent about them now also, so it is more of a case of the pot, which had been black many years ago, is calling the kettle now black.<br /> </p> <p><br /> However, I don't think "glass houses" applies in this case. If EMC is going to announce that they will deliver FAST v2 sub-LUN automated tiering, and then not deliver it for more than 18 months on their VMAX, then I am not sure how that is a "glass house" situation? Everyone understands the reason EMC is unable to deliver new functionality is because it is too busy fixing existing quality problems. I am not exposing any EMC secrets of this over-promise/under-deliver situation, and am not even the first blogger to bring it up. IBM has Easy Tier, on the other hand, already in the DS8700 and now announced for the DS8800, the new Storwize V7000 and the SAN Volume Controller.<br /> </p> <p><br /> In the interest of transparency, that both of our employers deem important, you are welcome to share with us the exact number of VMAX boxes sold to date, exact number of Severity 1 problems and how many involved data loss or unavailability if you feel my generalizations are inaccurate or misrepresentative. For now, I will edit the post to say 'several hundred' since you feel "few hundred" is misleading.<br /> </p> <br /> Tony (az990tony)

4 thestorageanarchist commented Permalink

Here's the glass house, sir (from your own launch materials): <div>&nbsp;</div> Other limitations <br /> The following functions are currently not available on DS8800: <div>&nbsp;</div> • Quick initialization and thin provisioning support <br /> • Remote Pair FlashCopy support <br /> • Easy Tier support <br /> • Multiple Global Mirror session support <br /> • z/HPF extended distance capability support <br /> • z/OS distributed data backup support <br /> • IBM Disk full page protection support <br /> • 16 TB LUN size is not available <div>&nbsp;</div> Not only NOT AVAILABLE, but NO DATES GIVEN either (in this document anyway). <div>&nbsp;</div> Could it be that the DS8800 was "rushed to market prematurely?" Why aren't these features shipping? Do they still have too many bugs? When they ship, will they be 100% bug-free? <div>&nbsp;</div> And Enquiring Minds want to know: <div>&nbsp;</div> ......Can we expect the clock on THIS generation DS8K to keep the correct time?

5 thestorageanarchist commented Permalink

One more thing about your malicious FUD: EMC documents ALL of the issues found in the release notes, no matter the source. And almost ALL of the DU/DL risks that are identified are found in our continuing QA process and most of these are corner cases that have NEVER been experienced by customers. We find 'em, we fix 'em and we let our customers know. <div>&nbsp;</div> Now, please, put down the rocks and crawl back inside your glass house. You've managed to derail your own announcement coverage by including several petty and malicious FUD attacks... <div>&nbsp;</div> Like I said, given the market share gains that VMAX has earned over the past 18 months, I'm not surprised. <div>&nbsp;</div> I wonder what else you're trying to hide behind that smokescreen...

Add a Comment Add a Comment