There comes a time I think that once a company gets to certain size and I think that NetApp are at that size; that a company needs to start to diversify. NetApp’s performance on acquistion has quite frankly been terrible; perhaps Georgen’s can turn this round and they can acquire and integrate well. NetApp for too long have traded on being ‘not EMC’; I am not convinced that this is any longer a credible strategy which brings me on nicely to EMC..you didn’t actually think I was going to let EMC off the hook?

EMC have exactly the opposite problem to NetApp; they actually have too many products and the ‘Cloud’ strategy actually sums them up! Their strategy is made of cloud, it’s large, all encompassing and when you try to get hold of it; well….Put it like this, the average sales-man cannot articulate it, they don’t even get to arm-waving bit, there’s a blank look and then they try to sell you some storage. But at least you have Chuck’s Blog!

So it’s about time EMC started to make their sale-guy’s lives a bit easier and shrunk their product catalogue. Clariion and Celerra need to become the same product line; yep, you need to copy NetApp and have a truly unified storage platform. You’ve got some bright guys who understand file-systems, containers etc; just admit the NetApp were right in the mid-range space and launch the Celariion. If you were feeling really brave, you could keep the gateway product and virtualise other vendor’s disk.

Next have a look at the CMA area; what exactly does Documentum do for you?  And when you start to drill down into the Documentum product set, there’s some real cruft in there. Does anyone actually use your Digital Asset Management tools for example? The whole CMA area needs looking at and streamlining.

Ionix? A rebranding exercise at the moment. The whole product set needs integrating and you need to sit down with the people who use this stuff on a day-to-day basis, you could streamline and much improve this product set. And as your friends at NetApp seem to be asleep at the wheel with SanScreen; you could actually catch up and go past them.

Like Ionix, your BURA product set needs integrating and streamlining; the Avamar/Data Domain story is confusing customers everywhere, it makes us go cross-eyed at times. For example, we were looking deduplication last year prior to your Data Domain acquisition and you were trying to sell us Avamar against Data Domain; now you want to sell us Data Domain. Confused and we aren’t the only ones!

EMC Consulting would be a good idea, not EMC paid-for PreSales which unfortunately it currently often turns into. You do have some good guys but stop brainwashing them and allow them independance of thought. I won’t rant about EMC-UK but it’s broken; if you want more information, contact me directly.

I think that like NetApp, you are in no-man’s land as an organisation and there’s a wonderful British expression ‘eyes too big for your belly’ which sums you up nicely at the moment!  And like NetApp, you have some interesting challenges ahead and some interesting challengers but quietly and privately, you appear to acknowledge that.

I do want EMC, NetApp and all the other storage companies to succeed and grow; in IT infrastructure, it’s the only place where there’s any kind of product differentiation. The server market is quite frankly, boring and the network market suffers from the big kid in the playground syndrome.

© Martin for Gestalt IT, 2010. | More Vendor Bashing!
Read more posts categorized as Storage

Now obviously, you are now thinking that ‘Bod has gone mad, so I better explain my reasoning.

Over the past year or so, NetApp have been quietly dropping products under the guise of focussing more on their core but if you look at things, their core is actually very narrow. Dropping unprofitable lines is obviously generally good business but I don’t see these lines being replaced with anything. Their product range is narrowing, this is not the actions of company confident in their ability to provide solutions to a market-place which will become increasing solution orientated. This is a company who is willing to be a little cog in the grander scheme of things!

The struggle to get OnTap 8 out of the door has in my opinion meant that the company has not really focussed on providing innovative new products. NetApp are currently not innovating and the rest of the market are catching up and some could rocket past them.

Some of the comments I’ve heard from people who have looked in more detail at OnTap 8 are concerning as well. If you are running OnTap 7; it appears that there is little for you, if you merely upgrade. It sounds like that a full re-implementation is required to take advantage of features like 64 bit aggregates.

When EMC announced Atmos, NetApp dropped big hints that they had a RESTful object oriented storage product in the works. This has yet to surface and I’ve not heard anything more than ‘watch this space’ muttering but there’s no product shipping.

Another reason that I am concerned about NetApp are that they are a single product company; if OnTap 8 struggles to gain acceptance, there is little for the company to fall back on. And there seems to be little appetite at the moment to broaden the NetApp product range and as I said earlier, they are indeed shrinking their portfolio.

The failure to take over Data Domain and loosing that battle to EMC, I suspect damaged the company’s confidence internally and I wonder whether they currently have the appetite to embark on an aquisition campaign but surely that is what is needed if they are to grow quickly enough to survive as a company long term?

The clustered NAS vendors could cause them pain going forward, the Isilons of this world are looking to do to NetApp what NetApp did to EMC. In fact NetApp remind me alot of EMC of four or five years ago, which is ironic as much of NetApp’s appeal was that they are not EMC!

And what’s worse, you’ve got some big players who could do immense damage to NetApp; I’m thinking IBM, Oracle and HP. IBM with SONAS could hurt them at the high-end and Oracle with the 7000 series could really hurt them in what has been traditionally their heartland; medium-sized NAS environments. HP could revitalise their storage business under Dave D but that is probably a longer term turn-around as opposed to immediate threat.

Yes NetApp have spent time building some strong partnerships but even this is a bit ‘meh’; not a huge amount of organisational innovation here. Nothing which made us sit up and think, ‘blimey, that was a clever move!’

In fact at the moment, ‘meh’ pretty much sums up NetApp as a company. Lots of companies go through a ‘meh’ period; HDS have been sitting in theirs for some time and need to come out pretty soon. EMC went through their ‘meh’ moment…IBM and HP have managed to have ‘meh’ decades in the past! Can NetApp come out of a ‘meh’ moment fighting and innovating? Lets hope so!

p.s I’ve labelled my own post as FUD…because if a vendor had written this…I might have accused them of writing FUD!

© Martin for Gestalt IT, 2010. | ‘Meh…it’s only a Billion Dollars…’
Read more posts categorized as Storage

Championing “open” and calling for standards has become the first stalling action by late-movers in technology spaces. They see opportunity passing by and try to hold back progress and FUD the market by yelling about proprietary solutions, vendor lock-in, and a lack of standards. Many well-intentioned IT folks follow along: After all, who doesn’t want openness, standardization, and interoperability?

But cloud services are different. Seriously! Cloud services don’t need standards because:

1. Cloud services are still rapidly evolving – No one knows how they will look in a year, let alone a decade, and a premature standard will be worthless. Similarly, it’s not at all clear what use cases will eventually win out, and usage should drive interfaces, not the other way around.
2. Cloud services are many and varied – It’s incredibly hard to come up with a reasonably-complete standard programming API or management platform when each vendor’s offering is radically different. Standards must follow the 80/20 rule, but today’s cloud offerings are only about 20% similar.
3. (Real) cloud systems are open already – The whole point of the public cloud is to leverage existing open standards for access (IP/HTTP) and any worthwhile service already has a freely-usable REST-like API. Cloud services are engineered to be programmable and open, so the only lock-in is in how you use the cloud.

We can’t even agree on terminology at this point. Is data storage as a service DaaS (as SNIA says) or STaaS (as NetApp says)? How do you define public, private, and hybrid cloud? And what is cloud anyway? Cloud computing is not a war, it’s a fantastically exciting race to deliver value!

Open for Business

I’d like to return for a moment to that last point: The key element I’ve seen in most interesting cloudy products is programmability. Service providers publish API documents outlining the inputs, processing, and outputs for their systems and developers and end users create applications that leverage these. The best of these APIs use the concept of REST, delivering services through extremely simple and self-contained HTTP calls. This barely even rises to the level of software coding (and thus isn’t a true API) and is the hallmark of the cloud.

These systems are wide open: You can explore their interfaces, discovering new ways to use the them that were never intended. The same process accompanies all Internet systems, from RSS and Atom to Yahoo Finance. Just as one can rapidly migrate from Yahoo to Google by substituting a few URLs and parameters, so too can one move between cloud platforms.

Note that certain cloud systems lend themselves more to this kind of mobility. Once cannot move virtual machines from Amazon EC2 to Rackspace or Terremark because the underlying hypervisor technology is different. But even here companies like RightScale are stepping in to enable mobility.

When it comes to cloud storage services, the major players’ interfaces are open enough that migrating data in and out is simply a matter of performance: Read from this one, write to that one, and wait until the process is done. I am not a programmer and yet I was able to port an application from S3 to Nirvanix in just a few hours using only the respective API documentation. Interfaces like CloudLoop can also be leveraged to ease the movement of data.

Standards When?

Cloud services will eventually settle down and be standardized. I expect a workable cross-platform API for RESTful cloud storage within 24 months, for example. And one expects that the management of cloud compute instances will pass through a consistent and stable interface in that same timeframe. But these will develop as a natural part of the evolution of the systems themselves, not through some artificial “build it and they will come” standardization process.

There is nothing wrong with big companies sending their representatives to SNIA and DMTF meetings to talk about standardization. In fact, this is a great way to discuss ideas and begin to orient the industry. But the time for standards has not yet come, and users of cloud services have no need to wait for them. In fact, waiting for a standard will just prolong the maturation of cloud services, since real-world applications are the external pressure that forces evolutionary selection. Amazon would never have created their virtual private cloud (VPC) capability without customer input, and they will never perfect this capability if they rely only on pundits, bloggers, and product marketers.

Even when standards do appear, they will not eliminate per-solution APIs. Cloud service providers will continue to explore new concepts, and these will appear first in “proprietary” interfaces. Perhaps they will use entirely unique calls, or perhaps they will leverage reserved or unassigned sections of the standard, but innovation will continue. Witness the radical changes in HTML versions to date, the additions to CSS, and the wide world of browser plugins.

So we don’t need cloud standards yet. They will come, whether artificially pushed by committees or evolving through use, but only useful standards will survive. Isn’t that just how it should be?

Note: I am employed by Nirvanix, a cloud managed storage service provider, providing independent cloud strategy advice as Director of Consulting. Although this article was not created for my employer and is not intended to reflect their views, my perceptions are obviously colored by my daily work.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. |
We Don’t Need Cloud Standards (Yet)


This post was categorized as Computer history, Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you’d like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2009. | We Don’t Need Cloud Standards (Yet)
Read more posts categorized as Cloud Computing, Featured, Server Virtualization, Storage