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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Allegoria who wrote (37852)	1/12/2001 9:55:27 AM
From: DownSouth	Respond to of 54805

We currently labeled this domain using your words: "content management / delivery versus centralized storage." Maybe a little fuzzy, but its fine. I would simplify it since if you deliver, you manage, so I proffer "content delivery versus centralized storage". Let me argue to make the label "internet content management & delivery". I choose "internet", as opposed to "web", because the content being managed may be data such as e-mail as well as content accessed via web tools. I include "management" because the ability to retrieve, store, and track content is as important as "delivery". Importantly, we agree that these domains are distinct - it is fairly obvious each domain serves two entirely different purposes. That is, it is unlikely that in the next few years either domain will likely take over the other's functions. You have predicted that the NAS architecture will connect the storage network to the communications network, but neither will not replace the other. Seems reasonable enough. Centralized storage and content management/delivery are distinct domains. They are distinguished by their respective purposes. Centralized storage is the architecture supporting the gathering of enterprise data into centralized location(s) for the purpose of managing the resources required to store that data, the security of that data, and to improve the efficiencies of managing the access and utilization of that data. Computer architectures supporting this architecture are generally characterized has having direct attachments between the application server platforms and the storage management platform. The storage management platforms include software to support the location, access, and backup of that data. The native file systems resident on the application servers manage the formatting, writing, and reading of the data in native file system formats (IBM, UNIX, WINDOWS). Internet content management & delivery is the architecture supporting the production, storage, security, and distribution of data originating internally and externally to the enterprise, and distributing that data to through the network so that the data is rapidly accessible to the users of that data. Computer architectures supporting this architecture are generally characterized has having communications network attachments between the application server platforms and the storage management platforms. The storage subsystems of the content management platforms include specialized file systems which control the data format, and the reading and writing operations so that the app servers connected to this architecture do not use their native file systems. The storage management platforms are generally distributed from central locations to the "edge" of the enterprise for the purpose of centrally collecting and securing content and distributing the content close to those who access it. Platforms include software to support access to the content by large numbers of "hosts", providing minimal latency, and managing the movement of copies of the content to the edge of the enterprise (caching). Both architectures require high scalability in terms of storage capacity and throughput. Content management/delivery architecture requires low scalability at "the edge". It is fair to say that EMC and NTAP might compete in each other's domain. EMC already is, NTAP isn't. With WAFL being as brilliant as you say, EMC must have a big chore. It is known that NTAP's content delivery domain is far smaller than the larger centralized storage domain. And the domains are projected to show approximate relative growth rates in the coming years. NTAP is competing in EMC's centralized storage domain, as it has the scalability to compete there. NTAP is weak in its throughput architecture in the centralized storage network (between storage devices), compared to EMC. EMC is not competing in the content management/distribution domain, as it lacks the distrubution and caching architecture. EMC is competing against NTAP in the mid-range to small scale centralized storage domains with its NAS Chamelon offering. NTAP's upcoming DAFS/VI architecture may provide NTAP with the throughput in the centralized storage network (between storage devices) to compete with EMC in the centralized storage domain. NTAP "is the gorilla of content management/delivery because it is the p/p leader with bte and the software tools to perform the job. NTAP's filers for storage, content delivery software, and caching appliances fulfill the requirements of this environment." You said it perfectly. My problem is that exactly the same can be said for EMC within the centralized storage domain. What doesn't EMC do in your above statement? WAFL? In the centralized storage domain, if EMC doesn't have a 'WAFL-type' of IP (causing disruption) then EMC cannot be considered a gorilla, is that it? EMC's architecture for centralized management (Symmetrix) is "closed/proprietary". That is evident by the fact that EMC must engineer its microcode to interface with each application server platform that it supports. In fact, EMC is interfacing its closed/proprietary architecture to the app server vendors's closed/proprietary architectures (channel to channel). The only barrier to entry to EMC's domain is the cost/time of developing these channel to channel interfaces and writing software to manage the central store. (You're making me work awful damn hard for this party!)