George D., Kumar is out of date, here is what users really worry about...
Users identify key storage issues
SNW poll reveals strong SAN, NAS support
By Heidi Biggar
At the recent Storage Networking World conference, users dispelled doubt over storage area network (SAN) and network-attached storage (NAS) adoption, revealing strong support for both technologies.
Of the 500+ users polled during a roundtable forum, 30% said they had implemented a SAN, 24% said they used NAS, and 46% said their systems included both SAN and NAS (see figure). On the downside, 43% of the users also said they didn't measure application downtime, 85% said they had serious staffing problems, and an alarming 80% admitted to not having a storage plan 12 to 18 months out.
The six-person roundtable polled users on a variety of topics related to SAN and NAS deployment. On the panel were Rudy Alexander, AT&T Solutions; Max Watson, BMC Software; Mike Ruettgers, EMC; Larry Peterson, Gelco Information Network; Linda Sanford, IBM; David Knight, Middlewire; and Michael Peterson, Strategic Research.
In line with a recent Computerworld survey, the panel identified three major concerns with SAN/NAS implementation and deployment: availability/uptime, staffing/resources, and interoperability. According to the Computerworld survey of 100 IT professionals, next to implementation costs (at 38%), lack of staff resources (at 36%) was the second greatest inhibitor to SAN deployment. Interoperability, often perceived to be the greatest impediment, came in a distant sixth (at 18%). (Computerworld, in conjunction with the Storage Networking Industry Association, sponsored the Storage Networking World conference.)
"Availability is our primary worry," says Larry Peterson, vice president of corporate technical services at Gelco Information Network, a provider of hosted expense and trade management e-services.
Uptime is paramount in global enterprise SANs, explains David Knight, COO and CTO, Middlewire, a start-up global enterprise content carrier. "We couldn't find software that could handle [our latency requirements] at the file-system level," he said. Like many large companies, Middlewire's success depends largely on tightly-coupled relationships with vendors and data centers. The company plans to build 15 multi-terabyte hubs.
"It's all about getting help and partnering," says Michael Peterson, president of Strategic Research, a consulting and research firm in Santa Barbara, CA. "But to do that companies need to figure out what they need - that is, what type of availability they require from each application."
Once thought of an impediment to business initiatives, IT organizations are now considered key enablers. CEOs are becoming involved in storage decision-making not only because storage is expensive, but also because the alternative - not having a storage infrastructure in place - is costly, explains Middlewire's Knight.
According to surveys, in 1996, 75% of a company's IT budget was allocated to systems, while only 25% was spent on storage. This paradigm is expected to reverse itself within three years.
However, amid the glory of IT's newfound status comes serious staffing and financial headaches. "Businesses are being pressured to implement infrastructures faster and faster," says Gelco's Peterson. "IT organizations of our size don't have the resources [or skills] to bring this to bear."
Is storage outsourcing the answer? Thirty-six percent of conference attendees said they were investigating the possibility, but an overwhelming 64% said they were not. Industry experts point to issues with security, control, and performance - not to mention the relative immaturity of the market and the current abundance of outsourcing "flavors" - as initial inhibitors.
But to keep up with all the emerging networking technologies (Fibre Channel over IP, InfiniBand, etc.), companies will need to turn to outsourcing, says Strategic Research's Peterson. And management will ultimately play a defining role, differentiating fledgling outsourcers and their mature counterparts.
When asked which was more important -- better management tools, better interoperability, or better quality of service -- 42% said management tools, 37% said interoperability, and 13% said quality of service. |
