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 : Son of SAN - Storage Networking Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pigboy who wrote (4140)	10/28/2001 3:08:27 AM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4808

I recall talking with an EMC Sales Engineer awhile ago about how HDS was the only company out there with a similar model to EMC in storage but they were still several generations behind in software (ie. I believe EMC was then on its 4th Gen SRDF, while HDS still only had 1st level functionality). The original SRDF that EMC introduced in 1995 broke new ground because it utilized array-based processing power but it was limited to a source-target (one-way) model and could only support expensive leased lines to establish synchronous (real-time) remote mirrors. Hitachi's mainframe and mainframe storage design philosophy was a replica of IBM's design philosophy until IBM swallowed its considerable pride and entered into a deal with a fierce piece-part rival,StorageTek, to resell IceBerg (log-structured system with compression) in 1997. Then it shifted to emulating EMC, typically dangling the prospects of a HMTT (now bankrupt) type of IPO for HDS and pointing to minor technical advances as proof of its technical lead. Hitachi’s product is patterned after SRDF in that it also uses array-based intelligence and it is more evolved than the original SRDF but not by much. HDS only released its SRDF-clone last year and had to subcontract their Celerra-clone only last June so HDS is behind by more than 4 years. As an aside, IBM’s historical problem with EMC's approach is that array-based intelligence *siphons* valuable mainframe/high-end Unix MIPS away from its mainframes and servers. EMC, for example, has traditionally complemented its array-based intelligence with management consoles that run on commodity NT or Unix servers or laptops and are tightly integerated with EMC's call-home diagnostics technology -- SRDF server, TimeFinder server, EDM server, FastTrak server, ControlCenter cluster servers, etc. Understanding the way IBM pulls in revenue with every mainframe is useful. Right now, IBM is benefiting from a new mainframe upgrade cycle whose scale should become clearer at year's end. The barebones mainframe market shrunk from around $14B in 1990 to around $1B in 2000. Mainframe storage shrunk from $8B in 1990 to $1.9B in 2000. Despite the widespread migration away from mainframes, each mainframe MIPS dollar still pulls in more than $7 in mainframe sofware sales and an undisclosed amount of planning/break/fix service sales. Mainframes are engineered to last 7 years and are typically depreciated over 5 years so the service contract may be the most lucrative part of the revenue stream over the life of each mainframe. Until it changed its software pricing policy late last year to the same per-capacity policy used by Sun, Compaq and HWP, EMC priced its software on a per-Symm basis. IBM was frequently caught off-balance in the marketplace because it could not match EMC's technical advances and it could not afford to cannibalize its mainframe-related revenues to compete with EMC's value proposition, particularly EMC's software which was priced on a per-Symm basis. This is the same problem faced by the leading high-end Unix server vendors like Sun and HWP. That is why EMC routinely controls more than 40% of the S390, Solaris and HP-UX market and why price is typically the main weapon used to stem EMC's advances in those markets. Going back, the current version of SRDF is bi-directional; i.e., the source can also be the target. It also supports all types of networks to establish synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous (variable time) remote mirrors at the block and file levels for the Symmetrix and Celerra platforms. This means that EMC can use one Symm -- stand-alone or as part of a SAN -- to create multiple synchronous and asynchronous copies in different Symms -- again, stand-alone or as part of a SAN -- in different locations as well as receive multiple synchronous and asynchronous copies from different Symms -- stand-alone or as part of a SAN -- in different locations using the most cost-effective combination of leased lines (guaranteed performance) and IP networks (best efforts performance) to address business requirements like network caching. EMC has thoroughly integrated SRDF with its very popular TimeFinder, which creates volume mirrors inside each Symm for parallel processing. Before EMC changed its software pricing policy last year, it had already sold more than 9,000 SRDF licenses and more than 15,000 TimeFinder licenses. SRDF came out in 1995 and TimeFinder came out in 1998. The main criticism of SRDF typically comes from software- only vendors and centers around the requirement of a Symm at both sides of each real-time or variable-time mirror. But this ignores the growing importance of system level software that becomes easier to implement as embedded chip and programmable chip technology become cheaper, faster and better with every turn of Moore's Law. .....Reliability and robustness against data errors is a requirement for storage systems. System interconnects, such as Ethernet and InfiniBand, typically use parity or CRC mechanisms to detect failed bits, usually resorting to software mechanisms for error-recovery. Software-recovery places a complexity burden on system designers and requires extra latency. This is usually not a problem for system-to- system interfaces, but within the system -- where real-time response is critical -- software error-recovery is unacceptable.... is.pennnet.com This also ignores the fact that nobody would go through the trouble of investing in disaster recovery if they use different storage systems with different failure management schemes inside each box. In fact, RAS (reliability, availability and scalability) features are the most resistant to standardization because each vendor has a different approach to system design and makes different system design trade-offs for different market segments. For example, each Symmetrix has a dedicated service processor that runs more than 1,000 diagnostic routines every 2 hours with remote monitoring and same day parts replacement services provided by EMC Global Services. In a simple SRDF installation in a raised floor environment, that means the both sides of the real-time mirror are being monitored by the same vendor under the same service contract. Hitachi and IBM have different approaches to remote monitoring that are not yet as sophisticated as EMC in storage (electronic and mechanical failure profiles) because they kept on changing monolithic storage platforms over the last 10 years. Now, why would anyone add several layers of complexity by putting a Symm and a Shark or Lightning at opposite sides of a real-time mirror. What business problem does that piecemeal approach solve? The fast-growing replication market is going EMC's way. EMC’s replication revenue consistently dwarfs the replication revenues of its next 3 or 4 competitors combined! Because IBM's disaster recovery product is tightly integrated into its mainframes, IBM is its own biggest customer for its disaster recovery products. IBM, Sunguard and Comdisco control more than 80% of the disaster recovery services market.

To: Pigboy who wrote (4140)	10/28/2001 4:31:58 AM
From: Gus	Respond to of 4808

Also, are things like SRDF key to the EMC/DELL relationship at all (Don't know if lower end NAS or SAN still require such software)? The short answer is yes, replication is going to be a key part of any storage networking OS. The long answer is this. A study on the runaway costs of distributed computing showed that the disk capacity in a typical large organization can be found in the following locations spread out over multiple sites: Desktops 54% Servers 32% Data Centers 14% Total 100% There is obviously an associated cost with the location of storage capacity and corporate data and latency is, well, forever. The usual tension in companies is between management and network cache, between the demonstrably lower management costs of consolidating as many mechanical disk drives behind as few intelligent controllers as possible and the demonstrably higher quality of service of locating the data as close to the target users as possible. This generally holds true not only for storage, but also for servers, networks and applications. Replication in core-to-edge storage networks is going to be a key technology in addressing those seemingly opposing business requirements under the kind of new IT procurement priorities suggested by the following articles below. ...."The first dollar I would spend would be on data integration," said Berger. "The FBI can get a piece of data to local law enforcement overnight, but it can't get that same piece of data over to the CIA....... ..........However, many data integration efforts in the private sector also fail, said Gilpin, "not for technical reasons but for political reasons." Berger agreed. "Databases equal budgets," he said. "So if you are going to give up control of your database, you're going to be giving up your budget." computerworld.com "Our biggest issue right now is dealing with vendors who are going around central procurement and getting into the business units. We're going to stop that," said George Vrabel, a senior IT vice president at Bank of America. The bank is expecting a 25% growth rate in its massive storage capacity this year. Yet even a giant like Bank of America encounters the same problems every company does on the storage frontier: product interoperability snafus, lack of maturity in distributed management tools and a struggle to make the cost/benefit analysis work. computerworld.com