Spinning rust woes: NetApp bumps along bottom while EMC soars IDC’s quarterly disk storage factory shipments tracker shows NetApp losing ground for three quarters in a row while EMC powers on to storage glory. Dell is down too. What’s up? The impressive growth performance of NetApp has stopped according to IDC, whose tracker looks at external disk and total disk storage factory revenues …
Since this is factory shipments, I suspect the IBM number wouldn't include their shipments of N series but this would be on the NetApp number instead. So if IBM had significantly moved sales, it could account for some or most of the NetApp decline and some or most of the IBM gain. I write as a recent ex-IBMer but with zero insider knowledge of the numbers.
...IBM's N-series shipments aren't very significant as compared to the overall FAS shipments. We had one (an N6040) and our account manager admitted it wasn't something they push aggressively unless they know they can win with it (our ownership experience bears this out - what a nightmare).
In addition to the N-Series, IBM's DS/DCS3000 and DS/DCS500 is also OEM from NetApp. It would be interesting to see how much of IBM's 13 percent share is NetApp OEM and what the numbers would look like if they were added to NetApp's 11.5 per cent share. I suspect that more than 1.5% of IBM's disk sales are NetApp OEM, so that would probably put NetApp at #2 ahead of IBM if there was a way to add in how much of IBM's storage sales were actually NetApp OEM.
According to NetApp's website they also OEM to Dell (PowerVault), SGI, Oracle, Bull, Terradata, DEPO, NEI and RAID. I'd think with those plus IBM OEM kit, NetApp would easily be #2.
Is there something I'm missing?
If I have time on the X-axis, I always make it ascend left-to-right. This is the second time I've noticed that El Reg. has published an article with a graph with the X-axis ascending right-to-left. Is this some kind of marketing chart that I'm not aware of, or is Chris just seeing whether we're on our toes?
It's a rocky period for NetApp. Ontap 7 mode was a great story but I'm not so convinced about the cluster mode situation. it's no simple transition and the benefits are questionable. Plus, to enjoy the benefits of a cluster mode world is going to cost you.
I feel that they've been massively wrong footed by industry trends. They've been so focussed on delivering cluster mode that they've missed the newcomers emerging with systems that are taylor made to work with flash (which WAFL ain't). Perhaps that's why MARS/Flashray feels 3 years late. Perhaps the cliff edge prospect of transitioning from 7 mode to cluster mode has given people time to consider their next step. If I were any other vendor, I'd be smelling blood right now.
Unless there is a fundamental change in their offering. I can't see where they will comfortably fit in the future of storage. They'll be squeezed at the low end by x86 scale out / abstracted high density storage and drained of life at the top end by all flash and hybrid vendors - many of whom will deliver IO without demanding extra money for licensed features.
As storage intelligence moves in to the hypervisor and VSAs - we need a simpler offering at the back end. One that is predictable & cheap. Can NetApp fit that bill?
This post has been deleted by its author
Not sure I would agree with that. Yes, NetApp is in a transition period between 7-mode and cluster mode, but saying that it has questionable benefits and it will cost you simply are not accurate. It doesn't cost any more to run cluster mode than 7 -mode aside form the cost of the cluster interconnect switch which is only needed when you have more than two nodes which many customers do not. Other than that it cost the same and even less in some cases. Cluster mode also brings QoS for storage which I don't believe anyone else does. Best of all it brings perpetual scalability where you can scale up and out live while it is in production and even remove, retire and replace controllers and disk shelves without taking an outage. You can actually remove an entire disk shelf from the middle of the stack and do that live without an outage. EMC cannot even do that on a VMAX, so this is a game changing product. Not sure if all of these benefits and then some would qualify as "questionable"
In regards to Flash, NetApp ships more flash capacity than all other storage vendors combined, so while "MARS/Flashray feels 3 years late" NetApp has been shipping hybrid storage with Flash for 7 (yes seven) years and has hybrid arrays with SSD's for almost three. NetApp had all of this before any other tier 1 vendor and before most of the flash and hybrid startups had a shipping product. Not sure how anyone can say "they've been massively wrong footed by industry trends" when NetApp was actually shipping what is trending today as far back as seven years ago.
Okay. I think you’re missing my point a little. For the record, decade + user of NetApp and long time fan. I’ve never recommended another top tier vendor in my life … but
You -[ “It doesn't cost any more to run cluster mode than 7 -mode aside form the cost of the cluster interconnect switch which is only needed when you have more than two nodes which many customers do not.” ]
I’m not saying that the CMODE or CDOT or Cluster Mode has a higher book price. My point is this, WAFL is getting on a bit now. A decade+ is a long time in IT. When you take a system like that and continually adapt to changing hardware and use case scenarios, you’re unlikely to match performance of systems that are designed specifically for the latest thing. Case in point, SSD. Are you telling me that Ontap/WAFL is the best solution for a hybrid disk array? Raid striping transient data in the flash pool / dedicating disks to parity / burning CPU cycles calculating parity etc? No, not really a great thing.
Is CDOT a good proposition? I like it in some respects and there are good features. But things like QOS for storage are not unique to this vendor. Take a look at Solidfire for a system that does it even better (mins and max – not just cap). NetApp cannot rely on bells and whistles to be winning key differentiators.
My main point is this – (and this isn’t just a dig at the big N because I’ve been a fan for years) – is WAFL able to scale with the hardware and deliver significant performance improvements over the next, say, 5 years? Looking at the FAS8240 series benchmark results on this site, I would say not. 30,000 iops more than a FAS3170 (and 30,000 IOPs in this day and age isn’t a huge deal for some of the new vendors coming online). In 5 years – that’s the performance improvement? The flagship storage node, beaten by a 5 year old 3Par array? So why not have doubts about what WAFL can deliver here. And if you follow that thought through - and consider binding yourself in to CDOT for the next 4 years – it then becomes a comparatively expensive proposition. All this at a time when the market is abstracting the bells and whistles away from the controller and sticking them in to software which can only lessen the demand for those features on array.
If you feel different about it , are happy with the performance and features then that’s great. You’re the master of your wallet – spend it how you like. Personally I’m not convinced and my gaze is drifting to the Nimbles and Tegiles that are materialising, and even more basic, cost effective server storage systems underpinning hypervisors and Openstack or serving software based storage. These are the game changers. Not CDOT although I wish NetApp best of luck returning to form.
One reason NetApp is down and this was indicated on their earnings call is that with the United States Government Sequester on spending and NetApp being the largest supplier of storage to the US Federal Government, even larger than EMC, it stands to reason that would cause NetApp's Numbers to be short for that time period. Only time will tell, will be interesting to see if their numbers change with the sequester spending limitis being drawn down over the next several years.
The article stated EMC led Q413 with a 32.9 per cent revenue share, up from 30.7 per cent a year ago. IBM had a 13 per cent share while NetApp was third with an 11.5 per cent share, then HP (9.6 per cent), Hitachi (8.1 per cent) and others (24.8 per cent).
What wasn't discussed was capacity shipped for the same period. If you look at the IDC charts for Q4 2013 Open Networked Branded Capacity combined NAS and SAN markets EMC still led Q413, but with a 29.0 percent capacity share, NetApp was clearly #2 with 17.7% capacity share, IBM was #3 with 12.4% share, HP was #4 with 8.8% capacity share, Hitachi #5 with 7.4% capacity share and Dell bringing up the rear at #6 with 5.7% capacity share. That said, EMC's capacity share was 3.9% less than their revenue share, but NetApp's capacity share was 6.2% higher than their revenue share. This would indicate that EMC generates more revenue per capacity shipped than NetApp and is part of what makes NetApp look like it is doing worse than it actually is. And these numbers don't include any of NetApp's OEM sales, only NetApp branded.
Last note: For the full year 2013, EMC had 28.3% capacity share and NetApp had 20.3% capacity share. The rest were IBM 11.5%, HP 8.4%, Hitachi 7.0% and Dell 6.2%. So the Q413 revenue charts really do not tell the whole story, the devil is in the details.
EMC and IBM end of financial year is December 31st, NetApp is mid-April. If you are buying and looking to get the best price when would you spend your money if you're a NetApp shop or planning to become one?
The swing at the end of Q1 2014 will most likely demonstrate the reverse pattern.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
