Zerowait Corporation

“Never confuse motion with action.”
— Benjamin Franklin

Does putting a product in a different package improve the product at all? The reason I ask is that IBM announced that it is selling NetApp’s FAS270 today for $50,000.00 for a 0ne TB package. However, a quick review of the test results at spec.org will show that this unit provide less performance then the F840 that NetApp sold a couple of years ago. So it seems like a lot of money for less performance, then you could get two years ago. Here is the article, I hope that IBM is including transferable licenses with the units. Because that would be a great way to help customers retain the value of their units. But as consumers our savvy customers should be able to get more competitive quotes now from the myriad of sources for the NetApp and IBM equipment since there are now four channels selling the same product. NetApp direct, NetApp resellers, IBM Direct and IBM resellers. Since there is no product differentiation the only difference will be price. So the sales process could turn out to be very similar to dealing with a car dealer and haggling on price will be the differentiator.

The last time NetApp tried to distribute it products through a major channel was with Dell Computer. Those Dell units were left without a lifeline when that agreement fell apart. I hope the folks at IBM have carefully read the DELL – NETAPP OEM agreement on Findlaw as it might help them manage their relationship.

Page 6 of the agreement was interesting.

within the scope of the above license. Neither Dell (except as provided in
Section 14 (Escrow)) nor any of its End Users is/are entitled to receive any
source code, source code documentation or similar materials relating to the
Licensed Non-Ported Software Materials. All End Users will receive Licensed
Non-Ported Software Materials subject to all of the terms and conditions of the
End User License.

6. Prices; Payment Terms.

a. Prices for OEM Products. NetApp agrees to sell OEM Products,
related options and software, protocols, software subscriptions and upgrades at
the prices and discounts specified in Attachment A-1, Section f.

b. Cost Reduction Assistance. Dell agrees to exercise commercially
reasonable efforts to assist NetApp in lowering its commodity costs for OEM
Products as provided in Attachment A-1, Section g.

c. Favorable Pricing. NetApp shall provide to Dell favorable pricing
for OEM Products as provided in Attachement A-1, Section h.

d. License Fees for Licensed Products.

License fees in conjunction with the Licensed Products (“License Fees”) shall be
payable to NetApp in conjunction with the Licensed Products as set forth in
Attachment B-1.

e. Payments. Dell’s payments to NetApp shall be made in U.S. dollars
as follows:

(1) For OEM Product orders with Dell’s EMF (European
Manufacturing Facility), Dell will make one (1) monthly telegraphic payment to
NetApp on the first working day after Dell’s fiscal month close. This payment
will be for valid invoices received and dated during the fiscal month prior to
the month just closed. (Example: Payments for the fiscal month of August will be
made on the first working day in fiscal October.)

(2) For OEM Product orders with Dell’s APCC (Asia Pacific
Customer Center), AMF (American Manufacturing Facility), and all other
affiliates, Dell will make telegraphic payment to NetApp forty-five (45)
calendar days after the date of a valid invoice from NetApp.

(3) License Fees and Hardware License Fees with respect to
Licensed Products shall be paid pursuant to Section 6(g) below.

No payment by Dell or receipt by NetApp of a lesser amount than the amount of
invoice shall be deemed to be other than on account of the earliest due amount,
nor shall any endorsement or statement on any check or letter accompanying any
check or payment be deemed an accord and satisfaction, and NetApp may accept
such check or payment without prejudice to NetApp’s right

Interesting stuff, and I wish IBM good luck.

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Abraham Lincoln

Over the last few days I flew to the Oshkosh fly in and camped with a few friends and enjoyed the air show and displays. www.airventure.com There were certainly a lot of interesting new designs in aircraft, engines and avionics. There are a lot of parallels in the aviation business and the enterprise storage business. There is always the ‘Fad’ factor of what is new and hot. And there are the old reliable designs that just keep on going. Aircraft engines have not really changed much in 50 years. And the Cessna 172 is a 50 year old design. The reasons why some things stay the same for so long is because you can’t change the rules of Nature in the air or in storage. A given wing area will only carry so much weight into the atmosphere, and that weight can either be fuel or people and baggage. Currently a given disk can only deliver as much data per second as the backbone of the network will allow to pass through from Point A to Point B.

Provided that you accept that you can make incremental improvements to your data storage design and that you want to maximize your return on investment the smartest thing you can do is improve your storage efficiency. Zerowait is working on a solution to provide a software solution that can help you improve you storage efficency. Jon Toigo’s blog mentions some salient points on why this is so important.

But the reality is that your storage vendor makes money on selling you inefficiency. Because the more storage you buy the more money they make. Our software will provide you with the information to help you create a more efficient storage network. It would make President Lincoln happy, because with our software, the storage vendors can’t fool you anymore!

Zerowait High Availability assures you of superior reliability of our replacement parts, service and support. You can now purchase your parts from us at www.thezerowaitstore.com

Unlike NetApp, Zerowait ships all replacement parts from our location and provides tested products to our customers with warranties of up to three years, depending on our customers’ requirements.

NetApp Out sources its critical parts distribution and re-manufacturing as evidenced by these articles :

Never for a moment did Network Appliance consider doing its own distribution of service parts.

As a result, NetApp needs to recycle defective parts, many of which can be repaired, as quickly as possible. ….Yet customers are receiving brand new boards only between 20 and 30 percent of the time.

At Zerowait, we consider service parts distribution to be a core competency of ours. We provide superior parts service and support at a fraction of NetApp’s outrageous prices. Just ask our growing family of satisfied customers.

“As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.”
— Andrew Carnegie

Over the last few months we have watched as the titans of the storage industry have started to purchase companies in the Data Security business. Although they say their focus is on storage, they seem to be trying to diversify as quickly as possible away from storage. You can see in previous posts the multiple times that executives in these companies have waffled about their vision for the future of their companies.
Why can’t they make a commitment to a long term strategy of High Availbility storage? Do these companies fear that they will be blind sided by a new disruptive technology? Don’t you wish they would tell us what they are afraid of?

I didn’t really say everything I said.”
— Yogi Berra

If Data Security is so important to data storage companies why are all their cabinets keyed alike?
— Mike Linett

03/2005 Hitz: We’re small enough that we can double our revenues in storage and remain a focused vendor. We’re not interested at all in going EMC’s route.

07/25/2005 article in Investors Business Daily Data Storage companies have new focus as many shifting into more Security work: “This is a growing priority for our customers, and they are looking for storage companies to address it,” said Dan Warmenhoven, chief executive of storage firm Network Appliance.

Questions for your storage vendor:
1) What percentage of your R&D budget is dedicated to Data Security?
2) What percentage of your engineering staff is dedicated to Data Security?
3) How long has your company focused on Data Security as a core competency?
4) what percentage of your gross sales is earned from Data Security?

Getting these answers will reveal if your Storage Vendor is truly dedicating resources to solving your data security problems, or just following the industry trends.

“Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders.” Ronald Reagan

7/11/05 DHS information security plans lacking, GAO says The Homeland Security Department has yet to establish an adequate information security program, congressional auditors found after spending nearly a year reviewing its cybersecurity policies and plans.

Information Security Forum Warns That The Cost Of Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Is At The Expense Of Other Security Spending 11 July 2005: A new report published by the Information Security Forum (ISF) warns that the cost of complying with the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation is diverting spending away from addressing other security threats.

Who has the keys to your data security? In many cases there are not even any locked cabinets protecting your critical business information. Data security should be considered part of data storage, not as an added feature.

Is NetApp charting a new course? If so, why?

“The reason why truth is so much stranger than fiction is that there is no requirement for it to be consistent.”
— Mark Twain

03/03/2005 Hitz – we can double our revenues in storage and remain a focused vendor
Hitz: EMC is putting together something that is very different to a storage company. VMware is by far the most interesting of their acquisitions and gets them into the realm of a systems company … VMware makes the systems guys, like IBM, very nervous as it places an abstraction layer between the OS and the underlying hardware so that multiple operating systems can run on the same server. So there are plenty of sparks flying between those two. It’s a reasonable strategy for EMC. They are the No. 1 storage company but still have to grow.We’re small enough that we can double our revenues in storage and remain a focused vendor. We’re not interested at all in going EMC’s route. Our growth rate in storage is roughly double EMC’s … In the long run, we would love to be No. 1 in storage and then move into new areas. But because we are small, we can stay focused and innovate faster.

NetApp locks down Decru for $272M (Jun. 16, 2005)
Network Appliance Inc. (NetApp) plans to acquire storage encryption startup Decru Inc. for approximately $272 million in cash and stock, reflecting the increasing role security is …

NetApp buys VTL provider Alacritus (Apr. 07, 2005)
Network Appliance Inc. today announced that it will acquire virtual tape library (VTL) and continuous data protection (CDP) software-maker Alacritus, for approximately $11 million …

It seems that NetApp is taking some detours on the hardware only roadmap that they were talking about in March. Have they decided to become a systems company like EMC? Are they afraid that Dual Core technology and 1TB disks will erode their market? Will they remain focused on storage with these new acquisitions? Why would they be changing their course so radically in only a couple of months?

‘Available Storage should be treated like Inventory. Either you have it, or you don’t.’
Mike Linett (2005)

Pursuant to Jon Toigo’s request that I clarify my statements on managing storage, I wrote him the following:

“Unused storage should be managed the same as raw stock inventory in a manufacturing operation. Some companies use a Min / Max inventory strategy, some companies use a forecasting and trend analysis strategy , and some companies just buy more inventory when they need it. These same concepts will work for your raw inventory of unused storage capacity. Additionally, most companies have multiple sources for their raw inventory , and purchase based on cost, availability and quality. Why should storage be any different? If you can track your usage of your raw storage you can see what it costs on different media and what the management cost are relating to storing data on your different storage platforms.

Production management has a concept known as ‘Johnson’s Rule’, using this rule you would schedule production to the slowest machine or operation, since that will be the bottleneck in your production process. If your storage equipment is your bottleneck for storage access then borrowing concepts production systems management and inventory management would seem to be the solution to raw storage procurement and resource scheduling. “

Our software will provide the tools to manage your available storage inventory based on your parameters for cost, availability and replenishment. We are currently working on the Beta Test version of the software and concurrently doing research on the correct pricing and marketing model for the product. According to this week’s Economist Article on technology the pricing model is very difficult in the era of dual core processing and is likely to get more difficult in the next few years.

But given all the imponderables, it has become extremely hard, if not impossible, to quantify what the value of any given piece of software is. What is known is that negotiating licences is not a trivial exercise. John Fowler, executive vice-president of Sun’s network systems group, finds that companies spend typically between eight and 12 weeks planning and discussing software licences with their suppliers. In its bid to answer the value conundrum, Mr Fowler’s firm has adopted the simplest of financial metrics. It charges firms a straight $140 times the number of employees on the customer’s payroll for using its proprietary software. Why $140? Because it seems to correlate with the price that the company and its customers think is good value for having no hassles. The simple subscription gives customers the unrestricted right to run Sun’s software on as many computers, by as many people, and as often, as they like.

While this model may work for Sun, we don’t think it is appropriate for our product. We are trying to get a feel from our customer base as to what the proper pricing model should be for this product. Proper inventory management can make or break a company, and it is apparent that proper computer Storage management is just as important.

Evenually, the coming revolution in Dual core processing will also cause a shift in scheduling storage to the slowest machine. For example, Provisioning backups will be done based on ‘Johnson’s Rule‘ and the storage production pipeline will be based on processor speed, available network bandwidth, and storage devices’ and their capacity.

At Zerowait, we understand the problem that our customers are having and we have developed a model and prototype of our solution which over the next several weeks we will be testing in earnest. We want to thank Jon for all of his sugggestions, and we look forward to hearing from other interested parties regarding features they are interested in incorporating into our package.

Jon Toigo (2005)
” I also think it would be great if someone could find a way to relate actual active storage growth to real inactive storage growth. “

Mike Linett (2005)
We are working on it Jon!

Jon Toigo posted this nice article the other day that references Zerowait

I have a message for all of the Tek-Tools, Computer Associates, AppIQ, EMC, Symantec, HP, IBM and all the rest of the 271 dabblers in the black arts of storage management: There are still a few simple data points that everyone seems to need, but no one seems to be getting from your products. Maybe this blog will help you to get your product development efforts pointed in a truly useful direction.

The other day, a client asked how he could get a handle on actual storage capacity growth in order to project storage requirements in his shop. He complained that he needed to go through so many gyrations just to get capacity allocation information out of his Network Appliance and EMC gear that he was seriously considering leaving storage altogether and joining one of the many troupes of the Cirque de Soleil that seem to be popping up at every hotel in Vegas.

“It seems like the vendors don’t want us to know how much storage we are using. Or how much we have right now. Or how much they are wasting with all the value-add that they are giving me using my disks,” lamented the would-be trapeze artiste. “In the meantime, I can’t give management a straight answer to a simple question: How fast is storage growing?”

Responding to the fellow, I borrowed a page from a good friend of mine (and fellow industry troublemaker) Mike Linett, CEO of Zerowait, Inc. in sunny Newark, Del. I told the guy to “treat storage capacity like any other inventory.” It’s a simple idea that somehow sounded much more profound when Mike said it to me:

“Say that you have an inventory of widgets and you want to know how fast you are using them up. You simply take inventory at routine intervals, trend it over eight weeks or so, and — voila! You have the storage usage info that you’re looking for.” It’s easier than doing a triple back-flip dismount off the high wire.

Linett currently has his guys developing a simple tool for performing this feat with the NetApp gear used by his customers. He says he will shortly be offering it on his Web site. From where I’m sitting, we need similar capabilities for all of those other house-of-mirrors arrays whose vendors seem to be doing all they can to obfuscate efforts at capacity allocation measurement.

For those who want more detailed information on what is actually using up all that expensive disk, Linett says he is adding capabilities to sort contents by file extension. You’ll know how much of your capacity is being eaten up by Microsoft apps, how much by downloaded BitTorrents, and so forth…another good idea.

I think there are a few more tweaks that the Zerowait folks could add as well. For one, I’d like to know how much storage each employee is using, or maybe all of the employees in a given department, or all the departments of a given business unit. That way, you can see who your storage hogs are.

I also think it would be great if someone could find a way to relate actual active storage growth to real inactive storage growth. People are always saying that you need eight to ten times as much inactive (backup, disaster recovery, data protection) capacity as you do active (production storage) capacity. Is that number real or just a bit of sleight-of-hand from the tape-and-mirroring crowd? I want to know!

Heck, I want even more: I want Mike to relate map his storage capacity statistics to some cost-of-ownership information. Take the value of the storage asset (usually a capital investment depreciated over time) and divide that by capacity to come up with cost per gigabyte (GB) to store data on that boat anchor of a Symmetrix or TagmaStore. Don’t trust those funny numbers from vendors, do the math yourself.

Truth be told, many vendors say that they are working on interfacing their storage capacity reporting tools to back-end asset management systems. That will be a great thing once they get around to it. But I’m sick of waiting for all the relationship building between storage guys and asset management software guys to deliver results. We can get there today, especially if Mike were to put in some data entry screens where consumers can enter in the cost data from their hardware invoices, and tick off the appropriate depreciation method. Even Excel can calculate the result.

Oh, and be sure to add in the cost of all of that legacy Fibre Channel (FC) infrastructure (HBAs, GBICs, switches, cabling, etc.) that customers are talked into deploying just to make their lives a living hell. Watch how $50/GB FC disk accelerates quickly to $180/GB FC fabric storage! How much is it costing consumers to put up their data at the Hotel Fibre Channel? Probably a lot more than they think!

I’d also like Mike to supply some fill-in-the-blanks spots for adding in soft costs: array software licenses, environmental costs (power, etc.), management and tech support costs (just multiply rough percentages of admin time by administrator salary or hourly compensation), and maybe even some pain-and-suffering expense that all those typical TCO models tend to overlook.

By the way, the result will be an all important component of any worthwhile Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) scheme. To write good ILM policies, you need to map data to appropriate infrastructure from a performance and cost perspective. Most of the self-styled ILM vendors aren’t giving us any tools for characterizing storage platforms, probably because most of them also manufacture storage platforms.

This is all pretty basic stuff that has been, for some reason, overlooked in the management tools that are out there right now. I haven’t even asked anyone to solve the problem of data naming, so we can figure out what to move in our ILM scheme, or to come up with a working access frequency counter, so you could know when to move data from target to target over time. For your information, you might be able to do that by taking the proctologist’s view: Look at your backup logs and do some reverse engineering to see what data is being changed and how frequently.

But that’s another blog.

Theodore Roosevelt
“We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal.”

Mike Linett (2005)
“Zerowait will provide you a square deal when your big storage vendor won’t”

Headline Network Appliance Delivers First Support Solution Designed Exclusively for Government Agencies
“Data management providers typically take a ‘one size fits all’ approach to service and support,” said Mark Weber, vice president and general manager, NetApp Federal Systems.

Some things never change, NetApp has always tried to make all its customers fit into NetApp’s service and support model. Zerowait has always customized its solutions to specifically fit the customers needs. Perhaps Mark Weber can write to us and explain specifically what his new program will supply NetApp hardware support program customers, and a clear pricing model would be helpful also.

Zerowait’s customers recognize that fancy names and marketing programs don’t improve support. Dedication to providing outstanding service and meeting our customers’ unique requirements is what is important. Tell us what you need, if we can help you then we will create a support program that fits you like a fine custom tailored suit, at an affordable price.