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 : Network Appliance -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Allegoria who wrote (5631)	12/13/2000 10:00:07 AM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

Thanks, Eric. Go ahead. I will not venture over to that thread at this time. I believe that EMC has a wonderful product in Symmetrix and it fills the needs of the raised floor, channel attached storage niche, which is a huge one. However, their attempts, thus far with NAS have been half-hearted. Their NAS/Symmetrix front end product was an obvious attempt to preserve their Symmetrix architecture with little investment and little risk. Their new NAS product was put together from existing software and hardware platforms that are well-understood; offer no real advantages compared to NTAP; and are being marketed (through channels) such that their sales force continues to concentrate on their Symmetrix product line and customers. This is a classic set of responses from a company being threatened by a disruptive innovation. For example, IBM did this with their UNIX product line and sold tons of the stuff to its huge installed base, but the product is pretty much an "also ran" in the general market, where it competes with SUNW and HWP. In the meantime, NTAP has met Symmetrix scalability challenges and eclipses EMC price/performance metrics. In fact, now NTAP has the scalable NAS solution and EMC is stuck with a mid-range solution that does not scale well. Their new NAS product has no innovations in its file system or its RAID methods. Thus innovations in backup and clustering are not forthcoming. Also, NTAP has changed the nature of its market niche by adding support for IBM S/390 DB2, adding software for end-to-end content management, including streaming content, and built its value chain with new virus control and more streaming media relationships. Their publication of benchmark data with multi-filer configurations prove their scalability and price/performance advantages. Note that NTAP recently was selected by ORCL for its internal storage needs, been selected by Airbus, and a few others. These are significant signals in their timing in the middle of all this EMC hoopla. The folks at ORCL understand both products (EMC and NTAP) very well. They have been using both for a while. They did an in-depth, source code level analysis of NTAP a few years ago when considering formal support of NTAP filers as NFS mounts of database tables. NTAP is still the only NFS mount supported by ORCL, or Informix, or Sybase, because of the strength of the NTAP software/hardware architecture. One must wonder what happened to the NAS solution that EMC originally said jusitified its purchase of DGN. Remember that Dan W said at the time of that purchase that he knew of no new NAS technology coming from DGN. Looks like his information was good. I must say that my respect for EMC's management has declined since the DGN and Tucci decisions. JT has had very little experience leading a sales force in a fast-growing, highly competitive, rapidly changing marketplace. I think that Tom Mendoza (NTAP) understands how to motivate the sales force emotionally and financially and is doing a great job. I am not trying to bash EMC here. I just find the contrasts between the two companies to be glaringly in favor of NTAP in the long run. And I did not even mention new developments at NTAP that will come to fruition next year, like DAFS/VI and, perhaps, a low-end filer to deliver content to the very edge of the content management network.

To: Allegoria who wrote (5631)	12/13/2000 12:33:27 PM
From: pirate_200	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

> It will be interesting to see if a different picture > of the Chameleon product emerges. It is pretty simple: EMC continues to introduce performance benchmarks that don't include RAID (parity) protection. Both their high-end "Celerra" and mid-range "IP4700" have been benchmarked with RAID turned off. Why? In addition to hiding performance problems by turning RAID off, EMC also does the following benchmarking hijinks: 1. With Celerra, adds tons of memory to the attached Symmetrix to fudge their numbers up. Note the following from a SFS entry: "Special Config Notes - 16GB memory per Symmetrix" See: specbench.org 2. With Celerra and IP4700, add extra hardware (RAID controller or disks) to help fudge numbers. Note that latest IP4700 system was configured with 100 disks, the latest NTAP F840 numbers were generated with 18 disks. Why not compare with similar configuration? 3. New with latest IP4700 numbers: use 4-processor Sun systems with 4 gigabytes of memory each to get clients responding as quickly as possible. This is a new twist, I don't think I have seen this one previously. If I were EMC, the analyst-appointed "Storage Gorilla", and I wanted to introduce a "NTAP-killer", I think I would configure a system similar to NTAP and show head-to-head that it was a better system. EMC chose not to do this because this product is not a "NTAP-killer", nor a "Sun-killer" and probably not even an "Auspex-killer". If there are any analysts reading this note, please print out its context and ask EMC to comment. They are flat-out-lying about the capabilities of this product, never mind the Celerra.