Corrective lenses needed for Gartner's flashy array vision

Gartner's gnomes gnosticated on all flash array sales (AFA) and revenues recently. Dell did not appear at all in its charts or revenue numbers and neither did HDS, leading us to suppose Dell revenues were lower than any of the eight AFA vendors mentioned. Yes, really. What's happened is a consequence of Gartner's requirements …

[Anonymous Coward]

AFA vs Flash

Someone needs to inform Dell that selling Flash as part of tiering doesn't qualify as selling an All Flash Array. They are muddying the waters which is precisely the reason for Gartner's AFA MQ. As shortsighted as the MQ is, there's a method to the madness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: AFA vs Flash

1. What if there is only 1 tier - flash - in the array?

2. What if tier 1 is flash and tier 2 is flash?

Both 1 and 2 above are legal and common array designs for Dell SC series and are all-flash arrays.

(note, I work for Dell)

[Nate Amsden]

3PAR controllers not the same

They are functionally the same but the all flash version has 32 more cpu cores and 1.7TB more memory/cache (assuming an 8 controller configuration in both)

I would of liked HP to have offered a "hybrid" version with the faster controllers(just gives more flexibility), maybe that will come in the future (like the 7440 is the same as 7450 just allows for spinning rust)

[Anonymous Coward]

Gartner (GG) SSA Market analysis & MQ includes IBM V840 and V9000! Why !?

Why inclusion Rules !

unique modle number:

For Gartner' SSA Market share analysis , Gartner (my guess) had to separate out the arrays that were flash+ HDD from all flash (no HDD) to track the sales of the SSA(AFA) revenue and capacity shipped. The sales and capacity numbers Gartner would aquire from all the storage array vendors which had AFA configs. For the AFA vendors that had AFA with no options for HDDs it was easy for those vendors to report to GG the revenue and capaicty numbers for AFA(SSA) . For vendors like dell, hds, Nimble,etc whom had no unique model number for AFA configs i expect may have found it difficult to report rev and capacity because there ordering /sales systems may not make it easy to differentiate the HFAs from the AFAs . Only a guess, but GG to ensure the $ and Capacities they were getting from the storage vendors on their AFA sales were not approximations or guesses by the storage vendors , GG set up the rule that GG Annual SSA market analysi would only report on the vendors products which had unique model numbers . GG 's SSA market analysis does report on the revenue made by vendors with "AFA configs like Dell ,etc. However GG SSA market report gives some revenue credit to the category of the "AFA " only HFAs but does not list SSA vendor by name in this category. Fair enough i guess, provided the numbers are smaller than the "AFA only " models. Chris quotes Dell stating Dell out sells all of them but EMC. If true then GG should put more work into that class of AFAs since those vendors revenue could change the forecast Y/Y growth of AFA. This could affect GG's Y/Y forecast of AFA revenue and AFA revenue and capacity shipped is probably much higner.

I personally think that all of the analysts AFA forecast estimates are too low .

No upgrade to HDD rule:

I dont understand the addl GG rule that the AFA cannot have ability to upgrade to HDD in the field. Makes no sense. !

And i dont think GG should be including the IBM V840 and V9000 because those product's ibm doc clearly state they can be upgraded to add disk .!! Those IBM products revenue /capaicty at minimum should be removed from GG market share analysis to be fair!!!! .

Regarding GGs MQ chart:- for GG's purpose of this MQ it makes no sense to eliminate HFA vendor products which are configured as AFA, in fact ignoring those vendors could lower the value of the MQ altogether . Eg Those vendor products may have features which in ssa market could be leaders and visionaries (like HDS or others) . The quadrant chart seems useless especially since HP is positioned so much lower than EMC IBM relattive to SSA! ? no sense at all!. However i think the detail on vendors strengths and cautions are reasonble and worth reading.

[random_graph]

Artificial compartmentalization misleads buyers

It would be great if we could wave this off as an artificially compartmentalized product ranking by some irrelevant blogger. But Gartner carries legitimate influence with buyers, and this MQ sends the wrong message.

Customers buy arrays to meet a price-performance-capability envelope, and because 95% of all workloads' data (including OLTP) follow the 10/90 hot/cold rule, custoemrs should *always* put some thought towards tiering whether inside the array (Dell, etc) or outside the array (VIPR etc) for maximum ROI.

Purpose-built AFA's could deliver intrinsically higher performance due to less baggage in the data path, but that's not an argument for the artificial classification, it's an argument for a performance-based ranking!

[Cloud 9]

Secret magicians conjure own world of self worth

Why the hell do we outsource our analytic thinking to other people. Is time so limited that I'm not prepared to make a judgement call unless it's underwritten by 'Gartner'.

Create your own magic quadrant and place yourself in the 'visionary' section. Stick two fingers up to chart wizards.