Sign in / up

back to article Cisco, Microsoft, NetApp chum up against VMware

Who needs VMware? NetApp, Microsoft and Cisco are releasing validated server/hypervisor/storage designs for Hyper-V cloud data centres. We definitely won't call them vBlocks. These template designs are part of Microsoft's clumsily named Hyper-V Cloud Fast Track program and NetApp's storage component is called the even less- …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Acadia?

    Entertaining... Especially from the perspective of where this puts Cisco + EMC + Vmware joint venture Acadia...

    Probably someone in Cisco has come to the same conclusion as a lot of people on this side of the pond - from a CEV it has degenerated into EEE so it is better to do without it.

    0 0
  2. Pooka

    I always thought

    H-Blockx sounded pretty good, actually.....

    0 0
  3. Lardinio
    Stop

    Embellishment

    I think the whole, no EMC or VMware, is tad misleading, is it not? Designed to make the article more interesting perhaps. I dunno. But the VCE solution (based on the vBlocks to which you refer in the article) is so much more than 'technical validation'. VCE is a coalition, with a brand and dedicated headcount in addition to significant interoperability testing and validation. This should not be confused with Cisco's wish to demonstrate that their UCS technology can interoperate with other storage or hypervisor vendors. I mean, Cisco would have to be pretty dumb to isolate themselves completely from working with these vendors, and possibly others such as HDS and Citrix for example, as it would limit their UCS proposition to only specific vendors, channels and end users. Why would they do that? Technical validation is something that every vendor does in order to appeal to complimentary channels and clients. Nothing sinister should be read into this. I mean, why would you expect Soni Jiandani to refer to NetApp's and Microsoft's biggest competitors when trying to demonstrate the validity of this new solution?!!

    0 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Who needs VMWare

    When we have VirtualBox?

    0 1
  5. calagan

    Sad state of affairs

    This is what happen when you are a smaller player with a superior product: the big names with subpar products win anyway using unfair strategies, such as unhealthy alliances, which surely won't benefit the customers in the end.

    0 0
  6. Doogie Howser MD
    WTF?

    "Journey to the cloud"?

    I'm sick of hearing such vacuous and pretentious bollocks. You need to have a word with yourself, mate.

    1 0
  7. multipharious

    Surprise?

    Even inside EMC there is a Microsoft Alliance. Are you all actually unaware of pseudo-strategic corporate structure and comp plans that don't require that all march in the same direction? Co-operatition is rife throughout the industry. EMC had alliances in recent history with email archiving vendors (see Centera) that competed with their own EmailXtender...that wound down ever so slowly after Symantec purchased Veritas that purchased KVS. I would not be surprised to see packages focusing on Microsoft virtualization from EMC under this context depending on the internal structure, MBOs, and compensation of the year.

    0 0
  8. AntiPoser
    FAIL

    NetApp & Cisco Cover the bases

    Same players have a VMware allaince http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/news-rel-20100126-cisco-vmware.html or just research FlexPod. This is business to the 2 big players cover the largest virtualization players and you can make money with bundled solutions. When basically people could probably build the samne solution using any Network provider, Storage Provider and VIrtual Provider...just sounds nice when you say "Certified Solution" touches nicely on companies Support Fears...

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like