Comments (9) Visits (15878)
I'm following theadvice of Tim Sanders, who reminds us ["Don't let the Wookie always win"].
In this case, it is not chess pieces, but FUD being slung around like mud between vendors. EMC blogger Chuck Hollis' post [Products vs. Features] correctly pointsout that IBM has invented most nearly everything useful in IT, and sadly a few things we wish we hadn't.Gene Amdahl, who left IBM to start his own company, is credited for coining the phrase describing IBM'sinnovative sales techniques. Wikipedia has a nice write up on the history of[Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt(FUD)].
Nowadays, when you hear "FUD" most storage administrators immediately think of EMC, who have taken this method to anew level of art-form. Take for example two EMC entries from fellow blogger BarryB, on his Storage Anarchist blog:[Not Dead Yet, andPushing Daisies].The first is a reference to a funny scene from a Monty Python movie, and the second one is referring to a terriblenew television program called "Pushing Daisies". (In this show, the main character can bring a dead personback to life for sixty seconds, just long enough to ask a few questions on behalf of his detective friend. He must touch the person again within 60 seconds, or someone else randomly dies instead. I amnot a fan of this concept, and found it a bit morbid and creepy. But I digress.)
It is true I was on vacation the past two weeks, but this was group travel I booked over six months ago before we had the exact dates lined up for our various announcements, and not a last-minute celebration of my recent new job assignment. I got all my assignments for this announcement turned in before leaving for my trip. I never thought of checking with fellow IBM blogger BarryW to make sure that we don't have overlapping vacation schedules, leaving the "blogosphere" unmanned, so to speak, but it is not a bad idea. Fortunately, our IBM PR team was able to make their rebuttal through other means. You can read the recap on Techworld [Marketing Wars by Proxy].
Several astute readers on my blog, however, requested that I add my two cents. Let's take a look at some of BarryB's comments:
...most DS8300's are to this day most frequently bundled as "free" storage with IBM mainframe and server sales.We just shipped our 15,000th box, so for this absurd statement to be true, more than half would have to be given away as part of a server-and-storage deal?Actually, about a third of our DS8000 sales are sold with servers in the same bundle, and while we do provide discounts from the official list price, that is not the same as "free". The other two thirds are sold into accounts to be used with the existing servers already deployed. So BarryB, your math doesn't work out. (Perhaps you've been taking Hitachi math lessons???)
It is interesting however, that when we do a 4-year TCO comparison, between a normally-discounted DS8000 versus free EMC DMX4 hardware, IBM still has the lower cost, given that most of the price-gouging from EMC happens after the initial sale, through software features, annual Powerpath renewals and MES upgrades. If you are an EMC customer, and you are planning to add more capacity to your DMX, ask EMC to charge you no more than what you originally paid on a dollar-per-GB basis for the initial capacity. That's only fair, right?
...No thin provisioning, or even a commitment to thin provisioning. Just crickets. (Celerra support since Jan 2006...EMC DMX does not have thin provisioning available today either, so BarryB brings up Celerra, their NAS box? IBM System Storage N series NAS box also has thin provisioning, so if you want thin provisioning you can buy a NAS box from EMC or IBM. Thin provisioning makes sense using NAS protocols, as there are actual commands to "delete a file" that can then free up the related blocks in a thin-provisioned environment. The only way to do this with block-oriented protocols is to get the OS to notify the storage device that blocks can be freed up. As it turns out, IBM's z/OS has such support, which we developed specifically for our thin-provisioning support in our IBM RAMAC Virtual Array disk systems back in the 1990s.For block-oriented devices on most other operating systems, thin provisioning may not be all that it is cracked up to be.
No SATA drives (only DMX-4 supports native SATA-II drives, since Aug’07)A few people are confused on this. IBM DS8000 has supported FATA for quite some time now, same slower speeds and higher capacities as SATA, but are technically NOT the same as SATA. FATA are designed to provide better protection against vibrational shock, to improve reliability of the drives. IBM felt that if the data was important enough to put on a high-end system, it should get better-than-SATA treatment. If you really want SATA, try our IBM System Storage N series, DS4000 or DS3000 models.
No RAID 6 (DMX-3 has supported multi-dimensional RAID since Q1’07, DMX-4 since Aug'07, ...IBM N series supports RAID6, but we called it RAID-DP and that confused some people. Same thing, DP stands for Dual Parity, protecting against a double-disk failure. We also just announced RAID6 on our DS4000 series, by the way.
No 4Gb back-end (USP-V since May '07, DMX-4 since Aug’07)I found this one odd, since BarryB himself in an earlier post explained why 4Gbps back-end made no difference to DMX4 performance in this post [DMX-4 and Oh So Much More], which I will put into a different color so you can tell it is from a different post:
You may have noticed that there weren't any specific performance claims attributed to the new 4Gb FC back-end. This wasn't an oversight, it is in fact intentional. The reality is that when it comes to massive-cache storage architectures, there really isn't that much of a difference between 2Gb/s transfer speeds and 4Gb/s. Transmit times are really only a tiny portion of I/O overhead, and just don't make that much difference when a massively-cached system is pre-fetching reads, buffering/delaying writes and reordering I/O requests to minimize seek times. Not that 4Gb/s won't help some applications, but most people just won't see any noticeable difference.In this case, BarryB is right. The IBM DS8000's 2Gbps back-end is not a performance bottleneck. The DS8000 with a 2Gbps back-end is faster than DMX4 with a 4Gbps back-end for business application workloads. EMC doesn't publish SPC benchmarks to deny this, so you will just have to take our word on this.
Still only 1024 maximum disk drives (DMX-3 & 4 support up to 2400 drives, USP-V supports 1152)I would be curious to see how many customers have more than 1024 drives on any high-end disk array.As we learned back in [Day 2 Storage Symposium], the average DS8100 has 17.4 TB, and DS8300 has 41.5 TB capacity. Using 500GB drives,that's only 83 spindles. Even with 73GB drives, that's 568 spindles. Plenty of room for growth, so I am notconvinced that higher theoretical upper architectural limits are worth discussing here.
Still only two HARD LPARs (partitions) ..., and even IBM’s mid-tier products support more than 2 storage partitions (in this same announcement)IBM's two LPARs are TWICE what EMC DMX offers. I don't even know why anyone from EMC would bring this up? While EMC is enjoying their success with VMware, the lack the experience to carry this over to their storage lines. Until EMC offers MORE THAN TWO of any kind of partitions on their high-end offerings, there just is no credibility here. As for our "storage partitions" on our DS4000 line, that is an unfortunate mis-understanding of the press release. On the DS4000, the term "storage partition" is really "LUN masking", dividing up only which disks can be accessed by which hosts, and not dividing up any processor or cache capacity. So this is not the same as any LPAR concept on any other system. For example, a DS4000 with 64 partitions can be attached to 64 hosts, or 64 host-clusters like a Windows MSCS environment or AIX HACMP.
No native Ethernet replication or iSCSI support (Symmetrix has had since 2002)Again, I found this one odd. On another EMC post, [Vigorous Debates],Chad Sakac mentions that only 2% of Symmetrix are sold with IP ports, not sure if this is for Ethernet replication, iSCSI attachment, or both (Again, I will use a different color):
On the Symm business (a huge part of EMC’s business – the IP ports are included on 2% of deals. That’s a fact.Just because engineer can put a feature or function on a box, doesn't mean there is business sense to do so. I would hate for IBM to invest millions of dollars on native iSCSI support, only to have 2% of our DS8000 boxes sold with that feature. Customers who have DS8000 on FC SANs already deployed can easily add iSCSI support either through their SAN switches, or by fronting the DS8000 with an N series gateway. Most customers looking for native iSCSI are the smaller no-SAN-deployed SMB customers, and for them, we have both the DS3300 and the various N series models to choose from.
Well that's my two cents. The DS8000 series remains a strategic part of the IBM System Storage offering matrix, with continued investment in the development, as well as on-going research that we can leverage throughout the IBM company. I would like to read your thoughts on this, post me a comment below.
technorati tags: Tim Sanders, Wookie, C3-PO, Star Wars, chess, FUD, Amdahl, Monty Python, Pushing Daisies, BarryB, Storage Anarchist, IBM, disk, systems, DS8000, DS8300, DS8100, TCO, EMC, DMX, DMX4, thin provisioning, Celerra, z/OS, RAMAC Virtual Array, RVA, SATA, FATA, RAID-6, RAID6, RAID-DP, 4Gb, 4Gbps, 2Gbps, back-end, LPAR, LUN masking, MSCS, AIX, HACMP, DS4000, DS3000, Chad Sakac, iSCSI, Ethernet, IP[Read More]
Well, it is Halloween back in the USA. I am in Seoul Korea this week, so it is already Thursday, November 1st here, but thought I would comment on Colin Barker's piece in ZDnet titled[SNW offers the frights].The article starts out with an oversimplification:
The storage industry is enjoying a boom currently thanks to the requirement for IT managers to keep everything. With the possibility of being sued any time by any company for no good reason at all, everyone is keeping everything, or at least all their data. Result? Loads and loads more kit being bought to the benefit of EMC, IBM, HP and every other supplier with any kind of storage product.
While its true that IBM System Storage grew yet again in 3Q07, exceeding our own internal business model, I would not call this an overall "boom" for the storage industry. While companies are growing in "TB capacity" by 30-50%, this translates only to single digit growth in terms of "Dollar revenues". This is because we continue to make storage with declining dollar-per-GB.
One should not confuse what people do with what people are required to do. I am not a lawyer, but most regulations pertaining to storage of information state that certain records need to be kept for a set amount of time, either a fixed period of years, or based on some event. For example, broker/dealers need to keep emails of their clients for six years after the client closes their brokerage account. After those six years, the records can be destroyed.
Unfortunately, many IT managers look at the laws and come up with the simplest solution: keep everything forever. While this might meet the regulators audit requirements, it does expose their employer to subpoenas for data that should have been deleted, and may not be very cost-effective.
The alternative for many IT managers involves having to leave their comfort zone, and talk to their legal counsel, the lines of business, and try to classify their data, determine a set of policies, and inact some forms of enforcement. This is perhaps the "scary" part of the storage of information, it has grown outside the walls of IT, forcing IT managers to interact with the rest of the business to get their jobs done.
Compliance is the only game in town and that is most certainly where the money is.
Anytime an analyst tells you that something is the "only game in town", they are usually wrong. In this case, IBM has had great success in other areas that are not compliance-related. For example, digital video surveillance (DVS) is being used not only to help reduce shoplifting, but also to help identify patterns in customers perusing through aisles and window-shopping. Identifying what people are interested in has proven effective in moving product displays around to better attract buyers and motivate them to make purchases.
Take, the keynote from Andy Monshaw, general manager of IBM storage, and thus a man who is very much in a position to know. He spent his allotted 30 minutes, or whatever, listing all the security, compliance, threats and related issues that are currently making the jobs of most IT manager a cause for concern. Now, there is an argument that suggests that it is absolutely the right thing to do to frighten IT managers into sorting out their issues. They need shaking up say some. Especially analysts.
I helped develop the content of Andy's SNW presentation, working with his speech writers and graphic artists to make a consistent and coherent message fit in the 25 minutes he was given. The challenge with SNW is that we needed to make this presentation applicable across the entire storage industry, without sounding like an infomercial for IBM offerings.
Some people have compared the storage to the "insurance industry", claiming that backups, remote disk mirroring, continuous data protection and other storage related features are costs that can be compared to insurance you pay to protect your home, business, and other assets. You hope you never have to use it, and complain how much it costs, but when bad things happen, you hope it is the best money can buy.
Unlike Y2K, which was a one-time event that had a specific date of occurrence, the threats and risks mentioned by Andy in his presentation may never happen at all, or in other cases, may happen more than once, without knowing when or where. For the sake of your shareholders, and your stakeholders, it is best to be prepared for these possibilities.
The counter argument says that IT companies just smell the money.
Is this a counter argument? Can IBM not both help customers mitigate their risks, and at the same time, turn a profit? Trust me, you do not want to do business with any storage vendor that is not interested in making a profit. The better ones have incorporated addressing client's most pressing challenges into their strategy. I gave a quick summary of IBM's strategy last August in [Day 1 Storage Symposium].
Helping our clients mitigate risks is just one of IBM's core strengths. If you want to learn more, contact your local IBM Business Partner or storage rep.Read More]
Comment (1) Visits (12237)
Well it's Tuesday, which means its time to look at recent announcements.While I was on vacation last week, IBM made a lot of storage announcements October 23.Josh Krischer gives his summary on WikiBon [October 2007 Review].Austin Modine of the The Register went so far as to say that [IBM goes crazy with storage system updates].
technorati tags: Josh Krischer, Austin Modine, IBM, DS8000, Turbo, FlashCopy, SE, space efficient, dynamic volume expansion, DVE, striping, z/OS Global Mirror, XRC, System Storage, Productivity Center, TotalStorage, Basic Edition, topology viewer, ONTAP, VFM, global namespace, TS7520, Virtualization Engine, virtual tape library, VTL, F05, SATA, LTO, LTO4, LTO-4, DS6000, DS4000, RAID6, RAID-6, AIX, Linux, System p, servers, TS2240, half-high, drives[Read More]
Comment (1) Visits (8158)
Well, I'm back from my relaxing vacation in New Zealand and Fiji. Yes, we hada few earthquakes near Milford Sound, several avalanches that blocked some roads, a few power outages, and we walked in a rain storm for three hours after our bus broke down. But overall, it was fun.
This week I am in Seoul, South Korea for various business meetings. The best part is that I am almost already acclimated to the time zone, since New Zealand was GMT+11 and Fijiwas GMT+12, I am hoping that I will adjust fast this week.
South Korea is part of our "BRICK" countries--those emerging markets made up of Brazil,Russia, India, China and Korea that represent IBM's spearhead into the SMB marketplace.[Read More]
I'm off for two weeks of vacation.
Here's a quick round-up of things I saw this week that didn't have time to blog about: