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: DownSouth who wrote (6009)	1/30/2001 2:46:40 PM
From: pirate_200	Respond to of 10934

> I don't see a problem with that, as long as they don't "double-count" it, both in the SAN and NAS numbers. > > I see a huge problem with it: Symmetrix is not NAS. Why count it as NAS? Downsouth: the first few paragraphs I know you already grok, I'm just putting them in as background for those that don't know this. EMC's Celerra NAS solution has 2 parts: a "head" that is a box that contains the software to implement NAS and a "back-end" that is a box (Symmetrix) that contains disks and controllers, memory etc. The Symmetrix in this case, is a very expensive collection of disk drives. NTAP's filers have 2 parts: a "head" that is a box that contains the software to implement NAS and a "back-end" that is a box or boxes that contain just disk drives. In NTAP's case, the whole deal is a "NAS" solution. EMC's is a NAS-SAN hybrid, but presumably, when they sell the Celerra/Symmetrix and book it as "NAS" revenue, the Symmetrix portion of the solution is solely used for NAS. That's all I'm saying: look at it (Symmetrix) as an expensive collection of disks (and controllers, and RAM and NVRAM). I suppose someone could configure a Symmetrix to be shared between a Celerra and as attached storage or SAN? If so, do they then book the revenue both as "NAS" and "SAN"? I don't have a clue but I would hope IDC or whoever does the research, figures this all into the equation. The same kind of monkey-business may continue with the IP-4700 since it can be configured as a Clariion SAN system or NAS. I guess it all comes down to how the marketing research organization count revenue and how much due diligence they actually do in the number generation.

To: DownSouth who wrote (6009)	1/31/2001 4:57:42 PM
From: nauset	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10934

notes form MER's Stsorage Conference: > Merrill Lynch > > Network Appliance (NTAP; $58.13; C-1-1-9) > Apr01E$0.41 02E$0.60 > * In comparing total cost of ownership for storage arrays, NTAP believes that Sun is approximately 2.5X and EMC is roughly 3X that of NTAP. > * Brocade switches will be bundled in future NTAP solutions. In order to simplify expanded NTAP storage arrays, Brocade switches will be used to connect filers and disks and effectively create the redundancy otherwise provided by cross-connecting each filer with each disk. This move effectively makes NTAP an OEM for Brocade. > * Texas Instruments, Oracle, Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Telekom all selected NTAP versus EMC or Inktomi. Mr. Warmenhoven believes that NTAP is continuing to penetrate the Enterprise. > * Mr. Warmenhoven characterized EMC> '> s new Chameleon NAS product as immature and noted that EMC has pursued a > "> bait and switch> "> strategy with Chameleon. This will undoubtedly be a long contest but it does not sound like NTAP is feeling much of competitive pressure. > * Network Attach Storage (NAS) remains an evangelistic sale and Mr. Warmenhoven believes that EMC> '> s entry into the market represents an implicit endorsement of NTAP and its strategy. In 1993, Cisco enjoyed its largest YY revenue growth rates. 1993 was the year that IBM introduced its SNA hubs and routers designed to > "> kill> "> Cisco and they had the opposite effect. The past may be playing out again. > * Mr. Warmenhoven listed local mirroring capabilities and SAN fabric between the system and disks at the top of his wish list for new storage developments. > * While competitive cataclysms make for good press and better novels, Mr. Warmenhoven pointed out that EMC and NTAP collectively own less than 25% market share in servers. Compaq, Dell, HP, IBM, and other server vendors own the remainder. While EMC and NTAP will undoubtedly become more competitive, the market opportunity remains large and viewing storage as a zero sum game is premature. > (T. Kraemer) > >