To quote from the Register piece:

He is dismissive of multi-level tiering, saying: “The simple fact of the matter is, tiering is a way to manage migration of data between Fibre Channel-based systems and serial ATA based systems.”

He goes further: “Frankly I think the entire concept of tiering is dying.”

Now, for those who are not familiar with the concept of tiering, it’s basically moving data between faster and slower media in the background. Clasically tiering is something that every organization is already doing. You consider the value of the information, and based on that you decide if this data should be accessible instantly from your more expensive hardware, and even at home you will see that as the value decreases you will archive that data to a media that has a different type of performance like your USB archiving disk or for example by burning it to a DVD.

For companies the more interesting part in tiering comes with automation. To put it simply, you want your data to be available on a fast drive when you need it, and it can remain on slower drives if you don’t require it at that moment. Several vendors each have their own specific implementation of how they tier their storage, but you find this kind of technology coming from almost any vendor.

Aparrantly, NetApp has a different definition of tiering, since according to their CTO tiering is limited to the “migration of data between Fibre Channel-based systems and serial ATA based systems”. And this is where I heartily disagree with him. I purposely picked the example of home users who are also using different tiers, and it’s no different for all storage vendors.

The major difference? They remove the layer of fibre channel drives in between of the flash and SATA drives. They still tier their data to the medium that is most fitting. They will try to do that automatically (and hopefully succeed in doing so), but just don’t call it tiering anymore.

As with all vendors, NetApp is also trying to remove the fibre channel drive layer, and I am convinced that this will be possible as soon as the prices of flash drives can be compared to those of regular fibre channel drives, and the automated tiering is automated to a point that any actions performed are transparent to the connected system.

But, if NetApp doesn’t want to call it tiering, that’s fine by me but I hope they don’t honestly expect customers to fall for it. The rest of the world will continue to call it tiering, and they will try to sell you a purple unicorn that moves data around disk types as if by magic.

© Bas for Gestalt IT, 2010. | “Storage tiering is dying.” But purple unicorns exist.
Read more posts categorized as Storage

You may have Dave and he may be free to work on storage now but we got the nearest thing to God in this business; we got Gelsinger. So anyway, you’re sucking up to Microsoft with this FrontLine schtick and putting in a quarter of a billion to get your products skin-to-skin with Hyper-V and System Center and whatever but it don’t amount to much at all really because we’re mounting a flanker on you.

Yep, we got NetApp, those Sunnyvale boy scouts, cosying up to Cisco and VMware and saying they’re better partners for them than we are at Hopkinton – like anybody will believe that, really! Chambers won’t be there – that tells everybody what he thinks about it – but it’s VMware baby, ESX all the way. Sure, NetApp has its Microsoft affair going full blast too but VMware is where the action is and everybody knows it.

We’ll have Paul Maritz sitting alongside Tom G at the VCN event on the 26th and he’ll pour smooth sauce all over Microsoft. He should be able to do that; he worked at Redmond alongside Ballmer. Hyper-V sucks; we all know it, it’s the Vista of virtualisation, we just can’t say it – yet.

So what’s the real story with Donatelli? Because this ain’t it. Is it going to be this big EVA re-jig thing with X86 controllers taking on different storage personalities? You ducked starting over with the high-end refresh, going with that USP-V-on-steroids thing coming out of HDS. The Frontline money had to come from somewhere, right? Good luck. While that’s getting started we’re coining it with V-Max, like FAST – geddit? Hah!

No, Donatelli’s playground is gonna be the EVA re-invention. Mark, we looked at this. I mean seriously, we did. But the customers want differentiation, they want to buy different iron, different brands for different jobs. Why else do you think we can get ten times as much for our stuff than yours? Just having software identities won’t cut it. Look at NetApp. They really only got one product and there they are, stuck. Yeah, they’re bigger than the chorus line suppliers, the 3PARs, the Compellents, the Pillars whatever. But they’re not a star. They’re not EMC.

Give Warmenhoven credit, he tried to go our way by buying Data Domain, parading Slootman like a big country club trophy at his all hands meeting. A lotta good it did him once the Hopkinton dogs barked and showered dollars all over the floor. Now Slootman is mine and Dan? He’s off polishing his putter, flying his jet between golf courses, and out of it with Georgens running the show.

These guys are dancing to our tune and you’ve got no chance with Hyper-V. Gelsinger is a God-driven dynamo and you’ll find Donatelli is a fish out of the water. He’s maybe got one good product refresh in him and than that’s it. He’ll become another one of the worn-out has-been execs you inherited when you walked into HP.

No, Donatelli won’t cut it. Word is he’s already pissed off Roberson. Maybe I’ll have HR give Roberson a call, eh? Would you like that? We could give him CLARiiON or Celerra or something like that to play with.

Hey, that’s enough for now. I gotta look at the new candidate acquisition list. What; Pillar? Really? Okay, you got Workman’s number… No, better call Larry first.

© Don Joey for Gestalt IT, 2010. | What Are HP and Hurd Up To?
Read more posts categorized as All, Industry Confidential

This change should not come as news to anyone who closely watches the company. Georgens was said to be the most-likely successor for Warmenhoven since his hiring in 2005 to lead NetApp’s enterprise storage systems group. He previously led LSI’s Engenio subsidiary and has experience at EMC as well. Analysts speak of Georgens with respect and expect little immediate change in the company’s strategy.

NetApp’s press release went out at 4:05 Eastern time, just after the close of the stock market. First-quarter 2010 financial results were announced at the same time, further diluting the market effects of the transition. The company’s stock was trading down slightly after-hours, but no major market movement is expected as a result of the transition. Warmenhoven will remain with the company for a short time before his expected retirement in 2010.

This executive succession stands in contrast to many companies inside and out of the storage industry. Many have speculated, for example, about who might be picked to replace Joe Tucci at the helm of NetApp rival, EMC, but no clear successor has emerged. No company’s succession plan has drawn more speculation than Apple, which has been tightly tied to the fortunes of CEO Steve Jobs. Both could learn a lesson from this gentle NetApp transition.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2009. | NetApp Shows How CEO Succession Should Work
Read more posts categorized as Exclusive, Featured, Storage