Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : EMC How high can it go? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Frasca who wrote (9573)	3/11/2000 9:05:00 AM
From: bob gauthier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

I think one thing to remember, NAS or SAN, is WHERE IS THE MONEY? EMC realizes this better than any other contender IMHO. The money is to be made in software. Either NAS or SAN represents a very complex computing environment albeit the correct path for the future. Dozens of compute nodes communicating wih hundreds of terabytes; who is in control? Who keeps system A from stepping on system B? Who controls the addition/deletion/change of storage? This is where EMC with the ESN (Enterprise Storage Networks) has a significant lead, and momentum with the Fibre Alliance. In the future whoever owns the controlling software owns the MONEY, irrespective of whatever box is plugged in. The most significant stumbling block to this equation right now is the entry cost for the EMC fibre switch, about $60K as a base unit. If EMC can come out with a less expensive entry switch WATCH OUT as the SAN marketplace explodes. These are all just my opinions of course but I'll be watching the EMC software revenue numbers most closely in the future. BobG...

To: Bob Frasca who wrote (9573)	3/11/2000 11:10:00 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

NAS's security is also poor compared with SAN. I don't think banks, insurance companies, airlines, American Express, or anyone with customer sensitive data (who does this not apply to, really) will be putting their mission critical stuff on NAS's any time soon. Guarantee of delivery is also not there with NAS. Does this Gilder guy have any real-time, hands-on IT industry experience? Just a question. Tony

To: Bob Frasca who wrote (9573)	3/11/2000 12:37:00 PM
From: MileHigh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

Bob, Thanks, but no I do not have any additional info, besides what I read in a Gilder Report, he could be wrong. EMC will do well, that's why I am long...I did by PRCM as an undervalued NAS play around 26 a month ago, closed yesterday around 64 or so. I'm not hyping it, but since it is on the storage sector, check it out, tell me what you think. It is refocusing on NAS and recently signed a deal with HWP and have a few awards recently. Everyone have a great weekend! MileHigh PS- I put this P/S ratio spreadsheet together a month ago, so it may not be too up-to-date, but told me something then. I would not chase NTAP here, JMHO.. Symbol P/S ratio PRCM 3.73 CFLO 131 COBT 60 NTAP 43 EMC 21

To: Bob Frasca who wrote (9573)	3/11/2000 3:48:00 PM
From: D. Newberry	Respond to of 17183

Hi Bob, << What evidence is there to indicate that NAS is going to supplant SAN in the storage world other than some highbrow white paper? >> Your questions are the same I have been concerned about for some time. I have been long EMC for over a year, and accordingly rewarded. I have been doing considerable research on the SAN vs NAS debate recently, and have yet to reach a definitive conclusion. I am staying with EMC for the time being, however, and will continue to monitor the situation My background is in Network Engineering, but I have no direct involvement in storage. My analysis is therefore second hand. However, I think it is useful to look at this business from two perspectives, the software as well as the hardware. In looking at the hardware components of NAS vs SAN, I am inclined to give NAS the edge. After all, they use standard Ethernet technology which is cheap and standard. 10G Ethernet is just around the corner and it will work very well. SAN, on the other hand, is a standard specific to storage. I would speculate that the costs will be higher for this hardware simply because the development is spread out over a much smaller base. The ultimate transmissions speeds will also max at 2G. The area I stumble on is the software element. If you are to assume that NAS (ie NTAP type devices) will win this contest, I believe you are assuming that storage will be a fairly non-complex commodity product in the future. An NTAP device, as I understand it, is easy to plug and bring on line. My experience in networks is that you generally trade simplicity for functionality. My assumption therefore is that the NAS product, ie NTAP, does not have the functionality that the traditional EMC product line has, based on its' simplicity (granted that is a big assumption to make). Now, taking that thought a step farther, I have a hard time believing that future storage requirements will be less complex than they are today. If you assume that our internet centric future will be centered more on storage and retrieval rather than mere processing, then I also assume that software management of the storage components will be extremely important -- at least in the larger data centers. With that line of reasoning I have decided to stay with EMC. They clearly have the software, not to mention great customer service. They are moving into NAS, and if Ethernet hardware becomes the preferred transport of the future, I would think EMC can make that transition easy enough. Their software component, however, cannot be easily duplicated by other vendors. I believe that is the competitive advantage that EMC has. Again, I have no direct experience with large scale storage systems. I would appreciate feedback from any posters that are in this field. It would be nice to get some direct insight. By the way, I think Gilder is great at the high level long term view of the universe. IMO his recent move into the stock picking world is misplaced, so I really don't put any stock in his NAS vs SAN arguments. This is the same guy that stated the other day that Cisco was doomed. Not that Cisco is guaranteed success, but his Sonet arguments made no sense from a technical perspective. Regards, DN