Despite having business meetings every day I was here in Moscow, I managed to do a bit of sightseeing. June is a good month to visit Russia, as there are nearly 18 hours of daylight to see things. Some things are outdoors, and not constrained to normal business hours.
Near my hotel, the [Crowne Plaza at the World Trade Center], was a cute little park called "Ulista 1905 Goda". It is always nice to see large cities set aside space for nature. There were plenty of park benches to sit and enjoy. The word Ulista simply means "Street" in Russian language, and 1905 refers to the year of historical importance.
The [1905 Russian Revolution] was a wave of mass political and social unrest that spread through vast areas of the Russian Empire. It included worker strikes, peasant unrest, and military mutinies, including sailors aboard the battleship Potemkin. Alexander Adrianov became Moscow's first official mayor. The revolution led to the establishment of the State Duma of the Russian Empire, the multi-party system, and the Russian Constitution of 1906, ending the reign of Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia.
Walking from my hotel towards the direction of the Kremlin, I managed to find the [Old Arbat street], which has been around since the 15th century. This was considered a prestigious area of town, home to many artists, academics and politicians. Today, it is pedestrian-only, no cars allowed, with various souvenir shops and restaurants.
This is [Saint Basil's Cathedral], on the [Red Square]. This is officially The Cathedral of the Protection of Most Holy Theotokos on the Moat, but there is no longer any moat.
There is a lot to see around the Red Square to see. The [Kremlin] is a walled castle with an [Armoury Chamber] and various other cathedrals and government buildings to see inside. A ticket for the Armoury Chamber will set you back 700 rubles (about 22 bucks). [Lenin's Masoleum] is free of charge, but only open for three hours on weekdays, from 10:00am to 1:00pm, so plan accordingly.
Returning back to the hotel from the event venue on Wednesday, I walked past the [Cathedral of Christ the Saviour] on my way to the Kropotskinskaya subway station. It is actually across the river from the Red Square. Built in 1860, it is considered the tallest Orthodox church in the world at 344 feet. The domes are electroplated in gold.
I found the taxis to be ridiculously expensive here in Moscow, so I took to the subway instead. If fellow filmmaker John Waters can [hitchhike across the state of Ohio], I can certainly be adventurous and ride the Moscow Metro.
The Moscow Metro is second most used rapid transit system in the world (the first being the one in Tokyo). As a result, the subway can get quite crowded, but I found being squashed into a carload of Russian supermodels to be quite tolerable. The price is a bargain at only 28 rubles per ride (less than a dollar), with unlimited transfers.
While the Metro is a great way to get around the city, it is also a destination in itself, as the system was built in 1935 and has historical architectures that you can only see underground. At the [Ploshchad Revolyutsii station], for example, there is a whole collection of bronze statues of men and women in different work roles. For the statue of the frontier guard, many people rub the dog's nose for good luck that it has become bright and shiny.
Dispel quickly the notion that you need to eat traditional Russian food while in Moscow. A bowl of Borsch (a watery soup made from beets) and a plate of Beef Stroganof set me back 50 bucks! Apparently, restaurants know that only tourists ask for "traditional Russian food", so the prices are set accordingly.
I had to find less expensive eats to stay within my per diem meal limits. Where do the locals eat? Russia is a modern country, with plenty of Burger King, Wendy's, Baskin Robbins, Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks.
No visit to any foreign country would be complete without at least eating one meal at McDonald's. Before working for IBM, I did software engineering for McDonald's, so as a former employee, I try to visit at least one McDonald's in every country. They have restaurants in over 120 countries, so I have a ways to go yet.
A meal consisting of a "Royal" quarter-pounder with cheese, large fries and a Coke was only 214 rubles, less than seven dollars. The meat patty was medium rare, just like I make at home. You just can't get that in the States where everything has to be overcooked to avoid food-bourne illnesses. The fries were a bit over-salted, but the Coke struck just the right balance of syrup and carbonation.
Moscow is home to many museums and art galleries. The [State Tretyakov Gallery] focuses on sculptures and oil paintings from Russian artists, named after a Russian merchant who dontated his collection to get it started.
Plan a good two hours to see everything. There were many guided tour groups when I was there, which slowed me down getting through the large crowds of old people.
There were over 50 rooms, with subject matter ranging from portraits, ships, and buildings, to piles of dead bodies in battle scenes. I especially liked the unique styles of [Mikhail Vrubel
] and [Vasily Vereshchagin
]. In many of the rooms, there were laminated placards in large-type English that explained the pieces on display.
My last stop was the [Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU)]. This served two purposes. First, it is situated up on a hill so that you can see a great view of the rest of the city. Second, there were street vendors selling souvenirs, including the ever-popular [Matryoshka dolls], military hats, keychains, and refrigerator magnets.
In other countries, I have found going to the movies as an interesting way to see the locals in action. Foreign movies are shown here in their original language, with either Russian subtitles for the locals or headphones to hear the Russian dubbed audio track. Sadly, I did not have time to do that this week. This poster, depicting the latest Disney movie "Brave", indicates that it opens this weekend.
As always, from a sightseeing perspective, I try to leave a few things un-done, so I have reason to come back. If you know of any other exciting things to see or do in Moscow, please put that in the comments below so that I can consider it for my next trip! I would like to thank my IBM Russia colleagues Rimma Vladimirova and Sunil Bagai for their suggestions and assistance.
technorati tags: Moscow, Russia, Arbat, Kremlin, Saint Basils, Red Square, Moscow Metro, McDonalds, Armoury, Lenin, Masoleum, John Waters, Tretyakov, Disney
|Last week, I was in Austin, and had dinner at [Rudy's Country Store and BBQ]. They offer their self-proclaimed "Worst BBQ in Austin!" with brisket, sausage and other meats by weight. I got a beer, some potato salad, and creamed corn, all at additional cost, of course. When I went to the cashier to pay, I was offered all the white bread I wanted at no additional charge. Are you kidding me? You are going to charge me for beer, but give me 8 to 12 complimentary slices of white bread (practically half a loaf)? Honestly, I consider bread and beer to be basically the same functional food item, differing only in solid versus liquid form. I chose to have only four slices. The food was awesome!|
I am reminded of that from my latest exchange with EMC.It didn't take long after IBM's announcement yesterday of IBM's continued investment in its strategic product set, IBM System Storage DS8000 series, that competitors responded. In particular, fellow blogger BarryB from EMC has a post [DS8000 Finally Gets Thin Provisioning] that pokes fun at the new Thin Provisioning feature.
Interestingly, the attack is not on the technical implementation, which is straightforward and rock-solid, but rather that the feature is charged at a flat rate of $69,000 US dollars (list price) per disk array. BarryB claims that recently EMC Corporate has decided to reduce the price of their own thin provisioning, called Symmetrix Virtual Provisioning (VP) on select subset of models of their storage portfolio, although I have not found an EMC press release to confirm. In other words, EMC will bury the cost of thin provisioning into the total cost for new sales, and stop
shafting, er.. over-charging their existing Symmetrix customers that are interesting in licensing this feature.
BarryB claims this was a lucky coincidence that his blog post happened just days before IBM's announcement.
(Update: While the timing appears suspicious, I am not accusing Mr. Burke in anywrongdoing of insider information of IBM's plans, nor am I aware of any investigations on this matter from the SEC or any other government agency, and apologize if my previous attempt at humor suggested otherwise. BarryB claimsthat the reduction in price was motivated to counter publicly announced HDS's "Switch In On" program, that it is not a secret thatEMC reduced VP pricing weeks ago, effective beginning 3Q09, just not widely advertised in any formal EMC press releases.Perhaps this new VP pricing was only disclosed to just EMC's existing Symmetrix customers, Business Partners, and employees. Perhaps EMC's decision not to announce this in a Press Release was to avoid upsetting all the EMC CLARiiON customers that continue to pay for Thin Provisioning, or to avoid a long line of existing VP customers asking for refunds. In any case, people are innocent until proven otherwise, and BarryB rightfully deserves the presumption of innocence in this regard. I'm sorry, BarryB, for any trouble my previous comments may have caused you.)Instead, let's explore some events over the past year that have led up to this.
Let's start with what EMC previously charged for this feature. Software features like this often follow a common pricing method, based per TB, so larger configurations pay more, but tiered in a manner that larger configurations pay less per TB, combined with a yearly maintenance cost.
(Updated: EMC has asked me nicely not to post their actual list prices,so I will provide rough estimates instead. According to BarryB, these are no longer the current prices, soI present them as historical figures for comparison purposes only.)
|TBs Licensed ||150||100||25|
|Initial List price||$190,000||$160,000||$60,000|
| || || || |
|Software Maintenance (SWMA) percentage||15%||15%||15%|
|Software Maintenance per year||$30,000||$25,000||$9000|
|Number of years||4 years||4 years||4 years|
| || || || |
|Software License Cost (4 years)||$310,000||$260,000||$96,000|
Holy cow! How did EMC get away charging so much for this? To be fair, these are often deeply discounted, a practice common among the industry. However, it was easy for IBMers to show EMC customers that putting SVC or N series gateways in front of their existing EMC disks was more cost effective. Both SVC and N series, as well as IBM's XIV, provide thin provisioning at no additional charge.
HDS offers their own thin provisioning called Hitachi Dynamic Provisioning.Hitachi also offers an SVC-like capability to virtualize storage behind the USP-V. However, I suspect thatfewer than 10 percent of their install base actually licensed this capability because it cost so much. Under the cost pressure from IBM's thin provisioning capabilities in SVC, XIV and N series, Hitachi launched its ["Switch It On"] marketing campaign to activate virtualization and provide some features at no additional charge, including the first 10TB of Hitachi Dynamic Provisioning.
Last week, Martin Glassborow on his StorageBod blog, argued that EMC and HDS should[Set the Wide Stripes Free]. Here is an excerpt:
HDS and EMC are both extremely guilty in this regard, both Virtual Provisioning and Dynamic Provisioning cost me extra as an end-user to license. But this is the technology upon which all future block-based storage arrays will be built. If you guys want to improve the TCO and show that you are serious about reducing the complexity to manage your arrays, you will license for free. You will encourage the end-user to break free from the shackles of complexity and you will improve the image of Tier-1 storage in the enterprise.
Martin is using the term "free" in two contexts above. In the Linux community, we are careful to clarify "free, as in free speech" or "free, as in free beer". Technically, EMC's virtual provisioning is neither, as one has to purchase the hardware to get the feature, so the term "at no additional charge" is more legally correct.
However, the discussion of "free beer" brings me back to my first paragraph about Rudy's BBQ. Nearly everyone eats bread, with the exception of those with [Celiac Disease] that causesan intolerance for gluten protein in wheat, so burying the cost of white bread in the base cost of the BBQ meat is reasonable. In contrast, not everyone drinks beer, and there are probably several people whowould complain if the cost of beer was included in the cost of the BBQ meat, so charging separately forbeer makes business sense.
The same applies in the storage industry. When all (or most) customers of a product can benefit from a feature, it makes sense to include it at no additional charge. When a significant subset might not want to pay a higher base price because they won't use or benefit from a feature, it makes sense to make it optionally priced.
- For the IBM SVC, XIV and N series, all customers can benefit from thin provisioning, so it is included at no additional charge.
- For the IBM System Storage DS8000, perhaps some 30 to 40 percent of our clients have only System z and/or System i servers attached, and therefore would not benefit from this new thin provisioning. It may seem unfair to raise the price on everybody. The $69,000 flat rate was competitively priced against the prices EMC, HDS and 3PAR were charging for similar capability, and lower than the cost to add a new SVC cluster in front of the DS8000. IBM also charges an annual maintenance, but far lower than what others charged as well.
(Note: These list prices are approximate, and vary slightly based on whether you are on legacy, ESA, Servicesuite or ServiceElect software and subscription (S&S) service plans, and the machine type/model. The tables were too complicated to include here in this post, so these numbers are rounded for comparison purposes only.)
|TBs Licensed ||150||100||25|
|IBM flat rate||$69,000||$69,000||$69,000|
| || || || |
|Software Maintenance per year (approx)||$2,000||$2,000||$2,000|
|Number of years||4 years||4 years||4 years|
| || || || |
|Software License Cost (4 years)||$77,000||$77,000||$77,000|
Pricing is more art than science. Getting the right pricing structure that appears fair to everyone involved can be a complicated process.
technorati tags: IBM, Austin, BBQ, thin provisioning, EMC, Virtual Provisioning, SEC, SVC, XIV, N series, Martin Glassborow, HDS, Hitachi, Dynamic Provisioning, System z, System i, DS8000[Read More]
Two blogs discuss Thick versus Thin storage virtualization.
This is a good discussion if you are interested in SAN Volume Controller and/or our N series disk systems.[Read More]
Next week, thousands will convene in Las Vegas for [IBM Pulse 2014], an IBM conference that will focus on Cloud, Service and Storage Management.
To lead up to this event, my colleague Steve Wojtowecz, or 'Woj' as we like to call him, IBM VP of Storage and Network Management Software Development, has a five part series that is worth a read. Here are some excerpts:
- Part 1: The Ities
In [Predictions for storage management in 2014], Woj introduces his five-part series with a discussion of the "..ities", namely Utility, Commodity, Simplicity,and Availability.
- "Storage-as-a-utility will pick up momentum. Call it [storage-as-a-service], or a storage / back-up cloud, or whatever name you prefer, deployments of this capability will ramp up dramatically."
- "Making something simple look complex is easy, making something complex look simple is hard. Like it or not, we all like things simple and easy to grasp."
- "Any data that a company is willing to store should be important enough to (1) be protected and backed up as part of a disaster recovery (DR) plan and (2) used for analytics for new business opportunities."
- Part 2: Software Defined Environments
In [Predictions.. Part 2], Woj covers the broad and deep impacts of [Software Defined Environments], abbreviated to just SDE.
- "SDE represents a deep form of change; instead of tying fixed resources to particular IT domains, you centralize and virtualize resources, then govern them with software policies."
- "With Software Defined Compute (SDC...), worldwide spend on x86 stuff since 2000 has declined from $70B to about $56B."
- "That doesn't suggest that fewer workloads are on x86 now (quite the opposite we know), it suggests a massive commoditization of the hardware and revenue shift to SDC."
- Part 3: Impatience
In [Predictions.. Part 3: Impatience], Woj discusses society's impatience with technology reaching the data center.
- "All types of admins (server, storage, network, VM, etc) want the big red EASY button."
- "This level of capability will require technologies to be implemented in an open and collaborative way. "
- "[OpenStack] will progress and be adopted at a much faster rate than other historical open source innovations--such as Linux when it was released--in an effort to deal with SSD and Flash sprawl."
IBM is a [platinum sponsor of OpenStack].
- Part 4: Hybrid Clouds
In [Predictions.. Part 4: Hybrid], Woj discusses Hybrid clouds.
- "Hybrid (specifically hybrid storage and data protection clouds) is no longer hype. Nearly every IT shop speculated that hybrid cloud storage was the future of enterprise storage and in 2014 the future is here."
- "... the industry will see accelerated adoption in enterprises (private cloud), as an off-premise managed service (public cloud), and across both (hybrid cloud) based on cost, compliance, security and criticality of data to the enterprise."
- "IT teams used to thinking of enterprise data as “their baby” are going to have to get comfortable with the idea that the baby is now living somewhere else."
- Part 5: Analytics
In [Predictions...Part 5: Analytics], Woj explains the benefits of analytics for data center operations.
- "Line of business organizations have been using analytics to uncover new revenue streams and business opportunities for years. Now, this technology is being turned inward and applied to the data center itself to drive operational efficiency."
- "This level of insight and predictability starts to dabble into the notion of cognitive computing as applied to storage and the data it holds."
- "Operational analytics will also be applied for productivity / performance gains for the infrastructure itself, like auto-tiering data for priority applications across heterogeneous hardware platforms."
For more insights into these predictions, attend [IBM Pulse 2014] in Las Vegas, next week, February 23-26.
Sadly, I won't be there in person. Although I helped launch the original IBM Pulse back in 2008, I have only been invited once to come back, and that was as a last minute replacement for another speaker in 2012. Unfortunately, I could not accept because of my [near-death experience].
technorati tags: IBM, Steve Wojtowecz, Woj, Pulse2014, Storage trends, Predictions, Hybrid Cloud, Analytics, Software Defined, SDE, SDS, SDC, x86, Cloud
Perhaps the recent financial meltdown is making storage vendors nervous.Both IBM and EMC gained market share in 3Q08, but EMC is acting strangelyat IBM's latest series of plays and announcements. Almost contradictory!
- Benchmarks bad, rely on your own in-house evaluations instead
Let's start with fellow blogger Barry Burke from EMC, who offers his latest post[Benchmarketing Badly] with commentaryabout Enterprise Strategy Group's [DS5300 Lab Validation Report]. The IBM System Storage DS5300 is one of IBM's latest midrange disk systems recently announced. Take for example this excerpt from BarryB's blog post:
"I was pleasantly surprised to learn that both IBM and ESG agree with me about the relevance and importance of the Storage Performance Council benchmarks.Nowhere in the ESG report says this, nor have I found any public statements from either IBM nor ESG that makes this claim. Instead, the ESG report explains that traditional benchmarks from the Storage Performance Council [SPC] focus on a single, specific workload, and ESG has chosen to complement this with a variety of other benchmarks to perform their product validation, including VMware's "VMmark", Oracle's Orion Utility, and Microsoft's JetStress.
That is, SPC's are a meaningless tool by which to measure or compare enterprise storage arrays."
Benchmarks provide prospective clients additional information to make purchasedecisions. IBM understands this, ESG understands this, and other well-respected companies like VMware, Oracle and Microsoft understand this. EMC is afraid that benchmarks mightencourage a client to "mistakenly" purchase a faster IBM product than a slower EMC product. Sunshine makes a great disinfectant, but EMC (and vampires) prefer their respective "prospects" remain in the dark.
Perhaps stranger still is BarryB's postscript. Here's an excerpt:
"... a customer here asked me if EMC would be willing to participate in an initiative to get multiple storage vendors to collaborate on truly representative real-world "enterprise-class" benchmarks, and I reassured him that I would personally sponsor active and objective participation in such an effort - IF he could get the others to join in with similar intent."
As I understand it, EMC was once part of the Storage Performance Council a long time ago, then chose to drop out of it. Why re-invent the wheel by creating yet another storage industry benchmark group? EMC is welcome to come back to SPC anytime! In addition to the SCP-1 and SPC-2 workloads, there is work underway for an SPC-3 benchmark. Each SPC workload provides additional insight for product comparisons to help with purchase decisions. If EMC can suggest an SPC-4 benchmark that it feels is more representative of real-world conditions, they are welcome to join the SPC party and make that a reality.
The old adage applies: ["It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness"]. EMC has been cursing the lack of what it considers to be acceptable benchmarks but has yet to offer anything more realistic or representative than SPC.What does EMC suggest you do instead? Get an evaluation box and run your own workloads and see for yourself! EMC has in the past offered evaluation units specifically for this purpose.
- In-house evaluations bad, it's a trap!
Certainly, if you have the time and staff to run your own evaluation, with your own applications in your own environment, then I agree with EMC that this can provide better insight for your particular situation than standardized benchmarks.
In fact, that is exactly what IBM is doing for IBM XIV storage units, which are designed for Web 2.0 and Digital Archive workloads that current SPC benchmarks don't focus on. Fellow blogger Chuck Hollis from EMC opines in his post[Get yer free XIV!]. Here's an excerpt:
"Now that I think about it, this could get ugly. Imagine a customer who puts one on the floor to evaluate it, and -- in a moment of desperation or inattention -- puts production data on the device.
Nobody was paying attention, and there you are. Now IBM comes calling for their box back, and you've got a choice as to whether to go ahead and sign the P.O., or migrate all your data off the thing. Maybe they'll sell you an SVC to do this?
Yuck. I bet that happens more than once. And I can't believe that IBM (or the folks at XIV) aren't aware of this potentially happening."
Perhaps Chuck is speaking from experience here, as this may have happened with customers with EMC evaluation boxes, and is afraid this could happen with IBM XIV. I don't see anything unique about IBM XIV in the above concern. Typical evaluations involve copying test data onto the box, test it out with some particular application or workload, and then delete the data no longer required. Repeat as needed. Moving data off an IBM XIV is aseasy as moving data off an EMC DMX, EMC CLARiiON or EMC Celerra, and I am sure IBM wouldgladly demonstrate this on any EMC gear you now have.
Thanks to its clever RAID-X implementation, losing data on an IBM XIV is less likely thanlosing data on any RAID-5 based disk array from any storage vendor. Of course, there will always be skeptics about new technology that will want to try the box out for themselves.
If EMC thought the IBM XIV had nothing unique to offer, that its performance was just "OK",and is not as easy to manage as IBM says it is, then you would think EMC would gladly encourage such evaluations and comparisons, right?
No, I think EMC is afraid that companies will discover what they already know, that IBM has quality products that would stand a fair chance of side-by-side comparisons with their own offerings.We have enough fear, uncertainty and doubt from our current meltdown of the global financial markets, don't let EMC add any more.
Have a safe and fun Halloween! If you need to add some light to your otherwise dark surroundings, consider some of these ideas for [Jack-O-Lanterns]!
technorati tags: IBM, DS5300, ESG, benchmarks, SPC, SPC-1, SPC-2, SPC-3, VMware, VMmark, Oracle, Orion, Microsoft, JetStress, EMC, BarryB, RAID-X, RAID-5, DMX, CLARiiON, Celerra, XIV, financial, global markets, crisis, meltdown, Halloween, Jack-O-Lantern
Last week, I presented IBM's strategic initiative, the IBM Information Infrastructure, which is part of IBM's New Enterprise Data Center vision. This week, I will try to get around to talking about some of theproducts that support those solutions.
There has been a lot of attention on XIV in the past few weeks, so I will start with that. Steve Duplessie, anIT industry analyst from Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) had a post [Adaptec buys Aristos, Tom Cruise, XIV, and Logical Assumptions] with some interesting observations and some sage advice.Val Bercovici on his NetApp Exposed blog, has a post [Has Storage Swift-Blogging Finally Jumped the Shark?] which blasts EMC for their negativity.
(For those not in the USA, swift-blogging is a reference tofalse accusations and negative remarks made during the U.S. 2004 presidential election by the[Swift Boat Veterans], and ["jumping the shark"] is a reference to [a TV show that ran out of interesting and relevant topics].For movie sequels, the comparable phrase is ["nuke the fridge"] in reference to the most recent Indiana Jones' movie.)
I was going to set the record straight on a variety of misunderstandings, rumors or speculations, but I think most have been taken care of already. IBM blogger BarryW covered the fact that SVC now supports XIV storage systems, in his post[SVC and XIV],and addressed some of the FUD already. Here was my list:
- Now that IBM has an IBM-branded model of XIV, IBM will discontinue (insert another product here)
I had seen speculation that XIV meant the demise of the N series, the DS8000 or IBM's partnership with LSI.However, the launch reminded people that IBM announced a new release of DS8000 features, new models of N series N6000,and the new DS5000 disk, so that squashes those rumors.
- IBM XIV is a (insert tier level here) product
While there seems to be no industry-standard or agreement for what a tier-1, tier-2 or tier-3 disk system is, there seemed to be a lot of argument over what pigeon-hole category to put IBM XIV in. No question many people want tier-1 performance and functionality at tier-2 prices, and perhaps IBM XIV is a good step at giving them this. In some circles, tier-1 means support for System z mainframes. The XIV does not have traditional z/OS CKD volume support, but Linux on System z partitions or guests can attach to XIV via SAN Volume Controller (SVC), or through NFS protocol as part of the Scale-Out File Services (SoFS) implementation.
Whenever any radicalgame-changing technology comes along, competitors with last century's products and architectures want to frame the discussion that it is just yet another storage system. IBM plans to update its Disk Magic and otherplanning/modeling tools to help people determine which workloads would be a good fit with XIV.
- IBM XIV lacks (insert missing feature here) in the current release
I am glad to see that the accusations that XIV had unprotected, unmirrored cache were retracted. XIV mirrors all writes in the cache of two separate modules, with ECC protection. XIV allows concurrent code loadfor bug fixes to the software. XIV offers many of the features that people enjoy in other disksystems, such as thin provisioning, writeable snapshots, remote disk mirroring, and so on.IBM XIV can be part of a bigger solution, either through SVC, SoFS or GMAS that provide thebusiness value customers are looking for.
- IBM XIV uses (insert block mirroring here) and is not as efficient for capacity utilization
It is interesting that this came from a competitor that still recommends RAID-1 or RAID-10 for itsCLARiiON and DMX products.On the IBM XIV, each 1MB chunk is written on two different disks in different modules. When disks wereexpensive, how much usable space for a given set of HDD was worthy of argument. Today, we sell you abig black box, with 79TB usable, for (insert dollar figure here). For those who feel 79TB istoo big to swallow all at once, IBM offers "capacity on demand" pricing, where you can pay initially for as littleas 22TB, but get all the performance, usability, functionality and advanced availability of the full box.
- IBM XIV consumes (insert number of Watts here) of energy
For every disk system, a portion of the energy is consumed by the number of hard disk drives (HDD) andthe remainder to UPS, power conversion, processors and cache memory consumption. Again, the XIV is a bigblack box, and you can compare the 8.4 KW of this high-performance, low-cost storage one-frame system with thewattage consumed by competitive two-frame (sometimes called two-bay) systems, if you are willing to take some trade-offs. To getcomparable performance and hot-spot avoidance, competitors may need to over-provision or use faster, energy-consuming FC drives, and offer additional software to monitor and re-balance workloads across RAID ranks.To get comparable availability, competitors may need to drop from RAID-5 down to either RAID-1 or RAID-6.To get comparable usability, competitors may need more storage infrastructure management software to hide theinherent complexity of their multi-RAID design.
Of course, if energy consumption is a major concern for you, XIV can be part of IBM's many blended disk-and-tapesolutions. When it comes to being green, you can't get any greener storage than tape! Blended disk-and-tapesolutions help get the best of both worlds.
Well, I am glad I could help set the record straight. Let me know what other products people you would like me to focus on next.
technorati tags: IBM, XIV, disk, storage, system, Steve Duplessie, ESG, Val Bercovici, NetApp, BarryW, SVC, DS8000, N6000, DS5000, mainframe, z/OS, CKD, SoFS, NFS, ECC, HDD, RAID, UPS, availability, reliability, performance, usability, blended disk-and-tape, green
In his Backup Blog
, fellow blogger Scott Waterhouse from EMC has yet another post about Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) titled [TSM and the Elephant
]. He argues that only the cost of new TSM servers should be considered in any comparison, on the assumption that if you have to deploy another server, you have to attach to it fresh new disk storage, a brand new tape library, and hire an independent group of backup administrators to manage. Of course, that is bull, people use much of existing infrastructure and existing skilled labor pool every time new servers are added, as I tried to point out in my post [TSM Economies of Scale
However, Scott does suggest that we should look at all the costs, not just the cost of a new server, which we in the industry call Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Here is an excerpt:
Final point: there is actually a really important secondary point here--what is the TCO of your backup infrastructure. In some ways, TSM is one of the most expensive (number of servers and tape drives, for example), relative to other backup applications. However, I think it would be a really interesting exercise to critically examine the TCO of the various backup applications at different scales to evaluate if there is any genuine cost differentiation between them.
Fortunately, I have a recent TCO/ROI analysis for a large customer in the Eastern United States that compares their existing EMC Legato deployment to a new proposed TSM deployment. The assessment was performed by our IBM Tivoli ROI Analyst team, using a tool developed by Alinean. The process compares the TCO of the currently deployed solution (in this case EMC Legato) with the TCO of the proposed replacement solution (in this case IBM TSM) for 55,000 client nodes at expected growth rates over a three year period, and determines the amount of investment, cost savings and other benefits, and return on investment (ROI).
Here are the results:
"A risk adjusted analysis of the proposed solution's impact was conducted and it was projected that implementing the proposed solutions resulted in $16,174,919 of 3 year cumulative benefits. Of these projected benefits, $8,015,692 are direct benefits and $8,159,227 are indirect benefits.
Top cumulative benefits for the project include:
These benefits can be grouped regarding business impact as:
- Backup Coverage Risk Avoidance - $6,749,796
- Reduction in Maintenance of Competitive Products - $1,576,000
- Reduction in Existing Tivoli Maintenance (Storage and Monitoring) - $1,490,000
- Tape System Purchase Avoidance - $1,481,911
- Increased Availability - Storage Management - $1,409,431
- Normalized 11% growth (additional licenses cost avoidance) - $1,193,000
- IT Operations Labor Savings - Storage Management - $982,919
- Network Bandwidth Savings - $575,196
- Standardization - $366,667
- Future cost avoidance of addtional competitive licenses - $350,000
The proposed project is expected to help the company meet the following goals and drive the following benefits:
- $6,456,025 in IT cost reductions
- $1,559,667 in business operating efficiency improvements
- $8,159,227 in business strategic advantage benefits
To implement the proposed project will require a 3 year cumulative investment of $5,760,094 including:
- Reduce Business Risks $6,749,796
- Consolidate and Standardize IT Infrastructure $4,975,667
- Reduce IT Infrastructure Costs $2,057,107
- Improve IT System Availability / Service Levels $1,409,431
- Improve IT Staff Efficiency / Productivity $982,919
Comparing the costs and benefits of the proposed project using discounted cash flow analysis and factoring in a risk-adjusted discount rate of 9.5%, the proposed business case predicts:
- $0 in initial expenses
- $4,650,000 in capital expenditures
- $1,110,094 in operating expenditures
Note: The project has been risk-adjusted for an overall deployment schedule of 5 months."
- Risk Adjusted Return on Investment (RA ROI) of 172%
- Return on Investment (ROI) of 181%
- Net Present Value (NPV) savings of $8,425,014
- Payback period of 9.0 month(s)
IBM Tivoli Storage Manager uses less bandwidth, fewer disk and tape storage resources than EMC Legato. For even a large deployment of this kind, payback period is only NINE MONTHS. Generally, if you can get a new proposed investment to have less than 24 month payback period you have enough to get both CFO and CIO excited, so this one is a no-brainer.
Perhaps this helps explain why TSM enjoys such a larger marketshare than EMC Legato in the backup software marketplace. No doubt Scott might be able to come up with a counter-example, a very small business with fewer than 10 employees where an EMC Legato deployment might be less expensive than a comparable TSM deployment. However, when it comes to scalability, TSM is king. The majority of the Fortune 1000 companies use Tivoli Storage Manager, and IBM uses TSM internally for its own IT, managed storage services, and cloud computing facilities.