Wait! Before we vote can I say just one thing(What a lie!)?
Eric: "…may I nominate EMC as a gorilla for SAN?" - Part I.
Apollo: Certainly. It's just that no one on this thread has been able to describe EMC's proprietary architecture.
Can you describe and a make a case for proprietary architecture held by EMC?
On this thread a while back there was a very good discussion about the logic in dividing and sub-dividing a given market over and over. I believe it was pointed out that if you narrow your scope far enough you can crown almost as many gorillas and kings as you desire. Does anybody know of a link to that discussion? Is this generally recognized by our esteemed leaders on this thread as a potential pitfall of the definition game? Or not? What criteria is used in defining a particular market?
So part of my reasoning for nominating EMC as a SAN gorilla was to point out the logic in perceiving the storage market from the proposed NTAP judgment. I love NTAP as a NAS gorilla too.
But there have been lengthy discussion (agreements?) that they are merely network architectures in the storage market.
From DownSouth:
Eric, why are you looking at SAN and NAS as separate markets? They are merely network architectures in the storage market. They are not niches, they are architectures. They have, for all intents and purposes, merged into mere topologies that fit within the storage network architecture--soon to be joined by InfiniBand, DAFS/VI, etc
Message 15039714
In fact I wasn't looking at NAS & SAN as distinct markets and I couldn't agree with DownSouth more! But the market place does use these categories as reference points for discussion. The storage market is evolving very quickly and the merging of the SAN / NAS architectures is already upon us. Witness HighRoad, DAFS/VI or the other efforts blurring these distinctions. I'll expand more on this in the next post. And a huge amount of effort is being poured into the continued decimation of these distinctions.
Others have persuasively argued that the two technologies are actually more complementary than competitive. NAS v. SANs -- It's being increasingly portrayed as the major battle in the world of information management. Truth is, however, it's largely hype. Network-attached storage and storage area networks are rivals no more than sight and sound were in the early days of cinema.
So it appears we have general agreement (?) we are discussing a storage market, not a NAS or SAN markets anymore. So for the sake of GG designations, would it be better to stick to the storage market in its entirety?
But as I said, the market places a partition between the NAS / SAN markets for a reference for discussion. Before a 'this-or-that' gorilla is crowned, consider the storage sector in this light:
According to Dataquest, NAS last year was a $68.2 million market and projected to become an $8.3 billion market in 2004.
SAN was a $1.8 billion market last year, and expected to grow to $40.4 billion in 2004.
NAS: $68m to $ 8b
SAN: $1.8b to $40b
Part of the 'gorilla-hood' mystic of NTAP and the wish for coronation revolves around the concept of disruption.
Prof. Christensen notes in The Innovator's Dilemma:
"Historically, disruptive technologies involves no new technologies; rather, they consist of components built around proven technologies and put together in a NOVEL PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE that offers the customers a set of attributes never before available." P.246
DownSouth says it perfectly (as usual!): "What you must remember is that NAS is NOT A DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION! What is disrutpive is NTAP's dis-integration of the file system of the general purpose OS. That is what WAFL does so effectively."
siliconinvestor.com
So I have to question the wisdom (not our esteemed elders wisdom however - never!) ;) of sub-dividing the storage market into SAN / NAS.
Thanks,
Eric |
