Contemplating IT

Updated August 23! HP jumps into the mix. Bottom line - HP sells a ton of storage in both the midrange and high-end environments. But the EVA is old in the tooth and they OEM their high-end from HDS. It will be interesting to see where each of these big vendors draws the line in the sand.

Original Post:

Dell has been doing extremely well with EqualLogic. Here is what I speculate they have learned since the acquisition:

1. Selling storage isn't easy but there is a real stickiness factor. You don't just swap out storage systems. Once you have embraced a solution you will most likely continue working with it for years to come and buy more and more and more of it. That is, if it is a good/great solution. If it sucks - even then it isn't easy to replace. Have you ever performed a data migration?

2. There is a ton of money to be made in little spinning platters especially if you don't have to split the pie. Dell storage margins eclipse the other stuff they sell. Damn it feels good to own intellectual property.

3. Dell figured out if they acquired a storage company that is already healthy and has differentiated products then it can catapult it to the next level far faster than if the startup was to run on its own steam. They know how to make this model work. Rinse and repeat!

4. Storage customers want FC. Turns out - iSCSI isn't the end all and be all for everyone.

5. The storage market is segmented. Again, EqualLogic doesn't fit every environment and a high-end FC system is just what they need to fill out their portfolio. 3PAR can cover mid-tier to high-end FC opportunities. There really isn't much overlap between these two solutions from a market perspective.

Interestingly, EMC and IBM made 3PAR more viable with their scale-out solutions, V-Max and XIV. 3PAR preceded both solutions by many years and is an Enterprise-class scale-out storage system. It is far more mature, feature-rich and field proven than V-Max and XIV. However, since EMC and IBM have basically redefined the next generation of Enterprise-class storage and 3PAR is already ahead of the curve, it validates them as an architecture and a product. If EMC and IBM stuck to their monolithic approaches and convinced the market that true Enterprise-class could never run on commodity hardware or support a scale-out architecture, then arguably 3PAR would be less compelling.

However, one of the main hurdles with 3PAR, from a customer perspective, they were still a little guy relatively speaking. However, now that Dell owns them this will no longer be the case. They can now play with the big boys and leverage their best-in-class scale-out Enterprise storage system.

I have been a proponent of 3PAR for years. Great architecture. Great technology. Easy to use. Excellent storage optimization. Field proven. Customers love it. It is perfect? Of course not. Does it fit every environment? You know the answer. But Dell buying them is pretty damn close to a no-brainer as you can get in the storage market.

Okay - who do you think is going to buy Compellent?

Some people believe that private IT clouds are just a different name for the same stuff we already have in the data center. I disagree. Regardless of what we call this new “thing”, a true IT utility or private IT Cloud, it isn’t synonymous with what we have today in the data center although many of the ingredients are the same.

The IT professionals that I’ve spoken to about private IT Clouds consider it to be the realization of IT as a utility within their own companies. It utilizes physical IT infrastructure for greater economies of scale, which is the essence of what a utility is all about. We've been talking about turning IT into a service utility for decades, so what has changed in that time? The biggest thing has been server virtualization, which creates an N-to-1 virtual server to physical server ratio. VLANs have done the same thing for networking. Additionally, some storage systems allow you to create virtual storage systems in a similar fashion. We have advanced IT technology to enable multi-tenancy and create logical systems within physical ones. The virtualization of IT infrastructure is relatively new and essential to enabling private IT clouds.

The critical pieces still missing for private IT clouds is the management, policy-based controls, reporting, analysis and "billing" systems for the entire IT ecosystem holistically. This is what will elevate private IT clouds from being a disparate set of virtual and physical infrastructure solutions to the new way we manage our data centers. However, this is the harder part to build because it requires core competencies that the infrastructure vendors don’t have. Additionally, you need to work with a wide range of solutions and vendors that may or may not cooperate.
Private IT clouds are real and will change the IT landscape but nothing is binary. We don’t go from doing things one way and switching it to another over night. It takes years with progress occurring step-by-step. There are points of acceleration and depending on the ease of making the shift, the clarity of the value proposition and the support of the ecosystem, this can happen sooner or later. Additionally, as markets emerge no one can really predict how it will all play out.

So what is an IT professional to do? Do what you always do when faced with something new and emerging. The early adopters will lead the way and some will make great choices and others will make mistakes. Keep reading, researching and analyzing. You might want to even dip your toe in if the cost and risk is minimal. Set cynicism aside and understand how private IT clouds can impact your environment for the short term and continue to evaluate the long-term implications.

Retiring applications is something that I must confess I haven't thought much about. However, I recently met with the Sai Gundavelli -CEO of an emerging vendor called Solix and he shared with me their new product called ExAPPS. Solix has been selling its data archiving appliance and in the course of doing so recognized the value of providing a solution for application retirement.

A brief description of the Solix ExApps appliance. First, this solution is designed for data base applications. It is an appliance that provides the software and storage for access and retention of the data from the retired application. In other words - you will move the data from the retired app off of your primary storage system to the ExAPPS appliance. And since the application is retired you will also access the data via the ExAPPS appliance as well as a gateway.

The things that I think are valuable and compelling about ExAPPS:

1. It is application-aware and supports ODBC and SQL92. You can retire your applications but still read all of the data, run reports and queries.

2. It re-organizes the database format and reduces the storage capacity requirements - according to Solix - by 90%. This significantly reduces your capacity costs, floor space, power consumption and cooling requirements. Remember that the application is being retired and the data is fundamentally being stored as an active archive. "Compressing" it - or more accurately - reformatting the data so that it is capacity optimized is the smart and practical thing to do. Will it perform as well? Probably not - but not because of the reformatting but because it isn't being run on big servers or big storage any more. But who cares? It's retired!

3. Since ExAPPS is actually reformatting the structure of the database it doesn't require any "rehydration" of the data. This means that even if you have to fire up the data and access it - the entire process requires no additional capacity or processing cycles as a result of a rehydration process.

It is also important to note that retiring applications is typically not taken care of by an appliance alone but requires planning and services. These projects can take months to accomplish effectively. So Solix and probably over time their channel partners will work with you on this process as well as provide the appliance.

ExAPPS is an interesting solution. Solix has taken what they've learned with database archiving and developed a solution specific to database application retirement. They were able to use a good portion of their current technology and add some additional functionality - in effect creating a blue ocean market for themselves leveraging their unique application retirement appliance.

I haven't spoken to any of their customers yet. Solix claims to have a handful of early installations with some big companies. And I intend to talk to more customers in general about the challenges with application retirement and how big of a priority this is for their respective companies. Application retirement appliances could be a new segment and other archiving companies may follow Solix's lead. It could be very interesting to see how this evolves. The IT world is getting "old" and we really do need to start thinking about application retirement as a priority.

I went to the Computer History Museum last week in Mountain View, CA to see the Difference Engine conceived and almost invented by Charles Babbage in the 1830s.   Basically this was a computer run by kinetic energy (a person moving a crank) using sophisticated mechanics to make complex calculations.  Babbage also conceived of the Analytical Engine - a general purpose computer that took the Difference Engine concept to the next level.  

The cost of these systems and the amount of time required to build them were daunting and his personality was so volatile that he alienated the ecosystem required to build them.  He finally gave up and said that "another age must be the judge".  Babbage was a victim of his arrogance and as a result he played a big part in the destruction of his own dream. He also over-promised and under-delivered spending years and years on the project and endless amounts of money. At some point his funding source - which was the British government - terminated the relationship after spending what it would cost to build 22 brand new steam locomotives. Not only did the funding end but so did any good will he had with the British government since they refused to consider further funding of his Analytical Engine - which could have changed the world in deep and profound ways.

This is from the Computer Museum website - "The first complete Babbage Engine was completed in London in 2002, 153 years after it was designed. Difference Engine No. 2, built faithfully to the original drawings, consists of 8,000 parts, weighs five tons, and measures 11 feet long."  And it works.

It was very cool to see the thing in action - all of the little widgets rotating and gyrating making clinking and clanking noises.  I highly recommend visiting if you are in the area.  (Btw - the photo was taken by a very nice girl named Sara. I left my camera back at the hotel and asked Sara if she could take one and email it to me. She did a great job too! She got Babbage in the background, the Difference Engine and me all in the frame. Well done Sara and thank you!)

What would have the world have been like if the computer was invented over 120 years earlier? Would there be an IBM? Intel? Microsoft? Apple? VMware? It was so close to happening, albeit in a different manifestation but the value would be very similar. Certainly the world as we know it would be measurably different - a compelling pun to consider when contemplating the Difference Engine.

I've been pondering Cisco and their Unified Computing System (UCS) and decided to finally blog on it. I participated in a InfoSmack podcast that included a brief discussion on UCS and recently talked to Cisco's Jesse Freund - who manages analysts relations for the Cisco UCS.

My first reaction when Cisco announced getting into the server business was - well let's just say I was a bit skeptical. First , Cisco UCS upsets the IT ecosystem, which is not necessarily a bad thing but it does have ramifications that need to be considered in terms of go-to-market, the impact to Cisco's channels and alliances, and of course it creates natural enemies that are big and powerful enough that even Cisco needs to be mindful of them - including Dell, HP and IBM. Certainly all three are already competitors on various levels but they also have alliances and must live together in the data center. But now Cisco is going after their bread and butter server business, which is a whole new ball game.

The second major reason to be skeptical is that the core competencies needed to sell and support servers is different than supporting networking devices. Cisco doesn't have the operations, sales, marketing, support, on and on and on. Third, server margins are not nearly as healthy as typical Cisco products. Do you want to focus your time and resources making 60 or 70 cents per dollar or 20 or 30 cents per dollar? The math is pretty simple. Related to that the server market is boring - it is declining and not growing.

Now this is a big deal to Cisco. Clearly a lot of thought went into this. And there are some really smart people that work there. So what is the business case that makes UCS compelling and strategic? Now maybe everyone reading this is already way ahead of me and get why this is important but I haven't read or seen anything concerning UCS that really focuses on my hypothesis and why this matters:

Cisco isn't really going after the server market per se but rather it wants to own the core of the data center. It wants to own the infrastructure that runs applications that run the business. At the heart - at the very core of the data center are compute resources - CPU and memory. "Owning" the core of the data center - can make you strategic, valuable and essential.

But it will take a lot more than just providing commodity CPUs and memory to own the core of the data center. Server virtualization by its very nature enables you to move from one CPU to another transparently. That is why if you want to own the core of the data center you need to really consider the value add provided in addition to the compute resources. And that value add has to be very, very sticky. Additionally, it should be something you are already really, really good at. For Cisco the first step in the value add strategy is a natural and obvious - go to where you are strongest - and with Cisco that is networking.

Therefore the other part of the UCS strategy is focused on converged networks, everything over Ethernet including the last big hold out, Fibre Channel. Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) becomes very important to them especially since networked storage is a critical part of the data center. A converged network using Cisco infrastructure including LAN, backup, management, VOIP and all storage protocols including iSCS, CIFS, NFS and FCoE results in lower cost, less support, and the reduction of cable spaghetti. The Cisco vision is to have all roads lead to Cisco UCS via a converged Cisco network.

By binding the core of the data center to the network - the arena that Cisco owns - gives them a major advantage and allows them to leverage their core competencies. And they can add more value - easier management, consolidated infrastructure, more efficient controls between the core of the data center and all the roads that lead to it. Additionally - you need the network in order to have a more efficient virtual server environment for mobility, availability, reliability and disaster recovery.

Cisco doesn't own the server virtualization software, the network storage, the applications - but they provide a platform to bring all of these things together. And they have the leverage - based on economics - to have everyone want to be their partner, even some of their major competitors - co-opetetion - because again of the economics involved. That is another essential part of Cisco's value add strategy, get all the partners to integrate and optimize around the UCS platform as evidenced by the VMware, EMC, NetApp, Cisco alliances. This intelligent and important move brought them closer together with the biggest players that provide the other essential aspects of the virtual data center - server virtualization and storage.

I am not convinced that Cisco is going to rule the universe with this strategy but it certainly poises them for owning more strategic footprint within their customer base (which is pretty much everyone). And I am just talking about strategy and vision - it is the go-to-market execution that will matter here and there are still a number of challenges facing them.. Dell, HP and IBM will not sit idly by and watch Cisco run rampant over them. Keep in mind that while Dell, HP and IBM servers are in a lot of places, they do not enjoy the same ubiquity as Cisco networking solutions. On the other hand these leading server companies are ready and willing to move money around to make deals. Cisco will have to perform a tough balancing act. They cannot win this game by matching hard dollar savings versus soft dollar esoterica and cost saving rhetoric. At the same time they can't allow themselves to lose sight of the bigger vision and driving customers viscerally towards it.

Integrating compute resources with networking solutions makes a ton of sense if you are Cisco. UCS enables Cisco to be the core of the data center with all roads leading to that core provided by Cisco's converged networking solutions. It is a strategy of Core + Access. For years Cisco has struggled to be more than IT "plumbing" - to be more strategic to IT, let alone the actual business units. By running business applications on Cisco equipment they are far better positioned to achieve this objective. By elevating themselves through providing solutions where business applications "live" is strategic and could be landscape changing.