Zerowait Corporation

Many storage clients are worried about how they will manage increasing storage demands when their budgets get cut. This is a legitimate concern, because purchasing new equipment will get harder as Capital Expenditure budgets get pinched in a recession or by inflation.

“A Wall Street superstar this year who runs Balestra Capital Partners, Jim Melcher, says he’s “worried about a recession. Not a normal one, but a very bad one. The worst since the 1930s. I expect we’ll see clear signs of it in six months with a dramatic slowdown in the gross domestic product.”

“Noting that consumption is already slowing, Mr. Melcher figures sharply rising unemployment is inevitable. Another of his worries is that central banks around the globe, America’s included, are debasing their currencies, which is setting the stage for a new round of higher inflation.”

Maintaining older equipment may pay for the time being, because of the leveling of processor speeds as seen in this WSJ article ,

“The great plateau has had a drastic effect on chip sales. There is less reason for computer users to replace their hardware and little reason for hardware companies to buy the most advanced chips, which are the most profitable for chip makers. “

Legacy NetApp users may actually be able to provide better database performance by keeping their older equipment running longer. The best example is the FAS980 customer who can keep adding 72 GB and 144 GB spindles all the way up to 674 disks, and save a bundle over a newer unit. If you are looking for a long term storage solution and your company is worried about the risks of inflation and recession, perhaps it is time to review your current storage infrastructure. The question to ask your storage vendor is how can you provide our company more storage with less money to invest?

Zerowait has some of these answers.

Storage is not the only computer application where vendors are unable to take advantage of ever increasing speeds of processors as the Wall Street Journal notes:

“Other users are running into problems already. Robert Singleterry Jr., a researcher at National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Langley Research Center, studies the potential effects of space radiation on astronauts. His software depends heavily on each chip’s clock speed — a contributor to computing speed, measured in gigahertz — and has seen disappointing test results based on quad-core chips with slower clock speeds than dual-core chips.

“Now when I buy the latest and greatest, the performance goes down,” Mr. Singleterry said. “This has never happened in the past.” “

The urgency to purchase new equipment from manufacturers has diminished without the steady speed increase. This change provides a great bargaining chip to the purchaser of new storage equipment.

American Heritage Dictionary –
ar·chive (är’kīv’) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A place or collection containing records, documents, or other materials of historical interest. Often used in the plural: old land deeds in the municipal archives.
2. Computer Science
1. A long-term storage area, often on magnetic tape, for backup copies of files or for files that are no longer in active use.
2. A file containing one or more files in compressed format for more efficient storage and transfer.
3. A repository for stored memories or information: the archive of the mind.

Will NetApp partner with anyone for the long term? It is a reasonable question to ask from a company that wants to provide you with a long term data archive solution. A simple search on Google reveals a few contradictions as to whether there is a long term commitment from NetApp regarding partnerships.

10:41 AM EDT Mon. Jul. 21, 2003
“CRN Interview: Dan Warmenhoven, Network Appliance
By Joseph F. Kovar
CRN
Last week, Network Appliance said it would for the first time sell products through distribution–via agreements with Arrow Electronics’ North American Computer Products group and Avnet Hall-Mark–to serve the bulk of its existing solution provider community and to attract more channel partners. Company CEO Dan Warmenhoven spoke to CRN Senior Editor Joseph F. Kovar about the distribution move, the channel and EMC/Legato.

CRN: Why the push through distribution?

Warmenhoven: It’s the next stage in expanding our channel partnerships. Over the last few years, we’ve developed a set of global partnerships with firms like IBM Global Services and Accenture. Last year, we got into what we consider ‘Star’ partners like Forsythe, Datalink and a few others. And we just felt it was time to move on to the next stage.

We’ve had a number of regional VARs, probably in the neighborhood of about 100, that we have developed in parallel with our Star partners. And it was really time to provide a consolidated way to interface with them and provide additional support to them. “

05 November, 2007 12:38:14
“NetApp cuts distribution ties with Avnet and Lan 1 in favour of a sole partnership with SAN Systems”

kayleigh bateman, CRN 05 Nov 2007
“NetApp looks to boost channel sales
Vendor looks to increase 60 per cent rate”

A data archive is going to take a long term commitment to parts and service, therefore researching your storage solution vendors commitments to long term partnerships should reveal whether they will be able to provide parts and service for the long term.

Therefore I suggest 2 simple questions that you ask your storage archive salesperson….
1) How long will I be able to purchase parts for this system after I put it in service, will you commit to parts availability for 7 or 10 years?
2) Mr Vendor does your service and support commitment match the American Heritage definition?

I was visiting with some customers in North Carolina for the last couple of days and each of them is very satisfied with their current NetApp hardware but they are experiencing indigestion when they look at what it will cost to buy new NetApp equipment.

One customer is looking at purchasing a PACS system for their medical image archive, but they are quite concerned about the cost of software and hardware from EMC and NetApp. Most of the medical image archive systems we have seen over the last year or two don’t seem to use much processor and have very low OPS requirements. That is because the nature of a medical image is to be looked at soon after it was taken and then exponentially looked at less and less over time, unless there is a lawsuit or a research project a few years after the image was taken it probably will never be looked at again. So why keep these images on energy eating spinning disk?

What this type of client wants is a stable system that can be supported for the long term, 10 years into the future or more. But the storage array manufacturers they have spoken to so far want to put them on the 24 month or 36 month upgrade cycle. Over ten years that means at least a few data migrations which are quite costly. But these clients also need to know what is it going to cost to keep all these disks powered up over ten years? And where can they get a accurate reports on how SATA disks will hold up for a ten year life span?

Maintaining images on near line disk storage is going to get costly as these archives grow. Someone needs to address the costs of power and the failure rates of drives and electrical components over the long term. Where will the storage archive manager get a 300 GB SATA drive 9 or 10 years from now when one of his disks fails?

How many 10 year old NetApp filers are still running? It is hard to get certain power supply parts for the NetApp F630 which are ten years old. We have heard that NetApp doesn’t ship 10K 72GB drives anymore. What makes people think these manufacturers will support 10 year old image archive equipment?

Over the last few months we have noticed that EMC seems to be winning more deals which displace NetApp than in years past.

“TELECOMS heavyweight Telstra is replacing Network Appliance and IBM storage equipment with gear from rival EMC in a project worth $40 million.

EMC chief executive Joe Tucci visited to Australia to meet clients.

The initiative is part of Telstra’s massive technology transformation program, which also involves replacing many legacy systems as the company simplifies its infrastructure.

A Telstra spokeswoman said EMC had been awarded the contract as part of the transformation program and it is understood from a source familiar with the deal that the Boston firm’s equipment is replacing systems from NetApp and IBM.”

I don’t know if you noticed, but lately Dave Hitz seems to blog a lot more about management and other issues than he does about the technology he helped bring to market. I like cars probably more than most folks–but because of our customers’ interest in performance of storage, I care more about how Dave Hitz is working on tweaking filer performance than about how much he likes Tesla electric cars.

What seems confusing to customers and myself are the performance figures of older NetApp equipment compared to new NetApp equipment. According to one NetApp Customer we know NetApp is trying to upgrade him from a FAS980 to a FAS3040. But he is confused by the performance and capacity figures and does not see how a FAS3040, although newer, is an upgrade. Below are the figures he used for his comparison.

The above comparison seems to give weight to a Wall Street Journal article a few weeks ago which said:

“Chip speeds more or less hit a plateau about four years ago because the devices started generating too much heat. If past trends had continued, microprocessors would be about 20 times faster than they currently are. This is a problem. Microprocessors that run faster can do more.

Designers are trying to work around the problem by putting several processors on each chip. But it is hard for programmers to write software that does a lot of things simultaneously. So far, they haven’t devised any “must have” programs that encourage consumers to buy new chips.

The great plateau has had a drastic effect on chip sales. There is less reason for computer users to replace their hardware and little reason for hardware companies to buy the most advanced chips, which are the most profitable for chip makers. The total revenue Intel and AMD earn from microprocessors has been shrinking steadily since 2003.”

So I would like Dave to get back to working on engineering issues within NetApp, and also to concentrate on blogging about how customers can get more out of their filers. It does NetApp and Zerowait no good to have customers moving on to EMC equipment.

Extending the Internet Tax ban was the right thing to do! It is astonishing because Congress can’t seem to do anything right recently.

“With Congress at an 11 percent approval rating, the lowest in history…..”

But here you go!

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate has approved legislation extending a moratorium on state Internet access taxes for seven years.

With only days left before the Internet tax ban was set to expire, the Senate reached a compromise between lawmakers who proposed a shorter extension and those who insisted it should be made permanent.

“By keeping the Internet tax-free and affordable, Congress can encourage Internet use for distance learning, telemedicine, commerce and other important services,” Sen. Ted Stevens, of Alaska, said in a statement on Thursday night.”

Now if they can just lower business taxes and reduce bureaucratic red tape… I can dream can’t I ?

What is a CIO or CTO to do in a world as mixed up as today’s Enterprise storage market is? How can the C- level executive make a 5 year storage plan when Sun and NetApp are going at each other so aggressively?

Jonathan Schwartz writes...
“The shift to commodity infrastructure is as inevitable as the rising tide – although for some, I’m sure it feels like a rogue wave.”

This is a statement of simple Adam Smith Economics, nothing surprising in that statement. But for a proprietary software vendor it’s fighting words…

Chris Mellor in Techworld sums things up well….
“Schwartz says that Sun will respond to NetApp’s lawsuit but will also open one of its own against NetApp in an aggressive raising of the temperature. Sun will file a suit attacking NetApp’s use of the Network File System, NFS, and requesting withdawal of all NetApp filer products from the market.

Ouch!

To rub in salt, Sun will pursue sizeable damages and donate half of any proceeds to free software causes. It’s not after the money in other words.

Also, to calm customer concerns, Sun indemnifies all ZFS customers against financial fallout from the NetApp suit. This extends to Apple.

In many people’s minds there is no way Network Appliance can emerge from this reciprocal pair of lawsuits as the good guys. NetApp started it. People urged talk at the CEO level to prevent a damaging effect on both companies. Schwartz initiated this and Warmenhoven has made unacceptable demands. “

Later in the article he states…
“What someone needs to do, perhaps, is to look Dan Warmenhoven in the eye, someone whom Warmenhoven respects absolutely, and say: “Discretion sir, discretion is the better part of valour. This engagement against Sun is one you cannot, in any real business sense, win.””

Jonathan Schwartz of Sun writes in his blog…

In the interim, if you’re a Net App customer looking for alternatives, we would be pleased to talk to you about lowering the cost of proprietary storage – if you’re a technical sort, start by trying out ZFS in software form. (There are also lots of reviews available, this one just posted). We’d also be happy to send you a free trial Storage System based on ZFS (pick the x4500 here). And remember, we indemnify our customers.

Now for a shameless plug…
In this chaotic environment, you can be certain that Zerowait will continue to provide outstanding and affordable monitoring, maintenance, and management for your NetApp filers for years to come! Give us a call we can calm your nerves!

According to storagemojo NetApp is cutting deals to move units out the door and to kill Isilon while it is still vulnerable.

“There is a rumor that NetApp, seeking to strangle baby Isilon in its crib, is giving away product to win deals.
At $1/GB I might buy one
If true, this could reflect continued weakness in NetApp’s results, as noted by analyst Tom Curlin at RBC Capital Markets in late July. They’d be plumping up the top line at the expense of the bottom line.”

At the same time as this is going on the CEO of Data Domain Inc., Frank Slootman seems to think that NetApp is still a Niche player in the storage marketplace. When asked to comment on NetApp by Glenn Hanus – Needham & Co. on their conference call this is what he said..

“Glenn Hanus – Needham & Co.
Anything you’re willing to say on NetApp?
Frank Slootman
“NetApp is a very different animal in the sense that NetApp really competes in their own accounts. NetApp has some percentage obviously of the storage market, which is considerable, but NetApp is not a broad-based competitor. NetApp is a very, very strong competitor when you get into NetApp shops. When you get outside of NetApp shops, you rarely ever see them. That’s very different for EMC. EMC has a very broad-based presence in the marketplace. Quantum tries to protect its installed base of tape devices and NetApp is trying to dig a moat around its install base of near store systems. That’s summing up the dynamic that’s going on out there”

So NetApp is cutting deals to kill competition and not doing very well at expanding out of its market niche. Is the “Moat” Slootman mentions to lock in NetApp customers or NetApp’s competitors out of accounts? An analyst should be able to get to the bottom of this.

According to this article about the recent EU decision Microsoft and NetApp are competitors.

“The pact negotiated by the European competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, and Steven Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive, will enable Microsoft’s competitors — from global enterprises such as IBM Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc. and Network Appliance Inc. to small, independent software developers — to make and sell server software that works seamlessly with Microsoft’s, which industry experts predicted would open vast new sales opportunities.”

But according to this article NetApp and Microsoft are partners.

“NetApp is proud to increase its commitment to Microsoft and the MTCs. Our increased investment in the MTC program demonstrates our current success and desire to serve customers using the Windows Server platform,” said Patrick Rogers, vice president of Products and Partners at Network Appliance.”

This could be a case of keeping your “friends close and your enemies closer”, or it could be the beginning salvo in a opening battle between the two companies. Either way, as a customer or competitor you have to wonder who is leading the PR campaigns in these companies because customers are receiving two very different versions of how these companies view each other.

It looks like they are investing quite heavily in their own solutions, I wonder how long they will resell NetApp gear?

See here….
“In his session, Andy Monshaw, General Manager for IBM System Storage, estimated that IBM’s storage effort to be a $6 billion plus business with some 6000 people spread across 170 countries. IBM invests heavily in storage with more than $500 million in R&D annually that last year resulted in hundreds of patents. IBM views the evolution of storage through a lens that sees the time prior to 2000 as the time of invention, the time between 2001 and 2004 as the time of integration, and 2005 and beyond as the time of innovation. The company plans to leverage differentiation comes through virtualization, archiving, and security/encryption (which were three of the topics in the deep dives earlier), and also wants to expand solutions through ‘green’ storage, the greater use of digital media, and expanded efforts in the SMB space. IBM views itself as having marketplace momentum in storage hardware, tape, external disk, and storage software according to market share numbers that it hopes to continue to grow.”

It looks like IBM’s storage business is investing almost 1/4 of NetApp’s total revenue in storage R&D, that leads me to wonder how NetApp can compete with this investment in basic storage research by what they claim to be one of their largest customers. It also has me wondering how long IBM will be selling NetApp gear, they seem to be gearing up to use their 6000 people to sell their own solution, which would be more profitable for them. How significant a share of NetApp’s business does IBM represent, and can they afford to lose that portion of the business? You can be certain that IBM’s storage sales force will sell the gear that they are compensated the most on, that is the one certainty in all of this.

If I were in IBM’s shoes I would compensate my sales force more and better to sell my own gear which has higher gross margins for the stockholders.