back to article Cisco: This $200k UCS S-Series is cheaper than AWS S3 after 13 months

Cisco has designed a storage server that it claims is 56 per cent cheaper over three years than paying out for Amazon's S3 service. The networking giant also reckons it's the first fully modular server architecture in the industry. The S-Series is designed for data intensive workloads such as big data, streaming media and …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    guess whats not in that comparison

    the price of the software you need to run it, or are they going to play the "CEPH" game and say its free (like a free puppy).

    C-series was a hard sell, dont see this being much better. Supermicro and the other ODM's will match its density at 1/4th the cost.

  2. Nate Amsden Silver badge

    s3 is pretty easy to beat on costs

    Object storage is not expensive, see this el reg article from 2 years ago

    And obviously EMC is not well known for being the low cost leader in storage (excluding situations where they "buy" the business like cisco likes to)

  3. acidack

    What lets vendor comparisons down is when they are half the truth.

    S3 comes in different classes and pricing and can be still cheaper than the 200k.

    Also, hardware comes with mgmt & hosting costs.. sigh.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Do I....

    Do I only pay storage consumed? If I delete a large file will Cisco write me a refund check for a portion of the massive capex payment I've already made? Will I get a similar refund if I promise not to access a portion of my data very often or opt to place it in an archive tier? Thought not.

    Go home Cisco, you're drunk.

    1. RollTide14

      Re: Do I....

      Your org doing a bunch of deleting of files???

      I agree on a bunch of the comments, but I'm not seeing anyone with SHRINKING storage requirements

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Do I....

        "Your org doing a bunch of deleting of files???"

        Yep. Deleting old data that's no longer required. Moving data to different tiers of storage. Anything to reduce cost while not affecting the business's ability to operate. Aren't you? If not, how relevant do you think you are to the business?

        "I'm not seeing anyone with SHRINKING storage requirements"

        Who said anything about shrinking storage requirements?

  5. hoozie

    Does this include:

    - rack space monthly

    - software

    - any service contracts

    - cost of physically mounting, learning, and configuring the bespoke system

    - power costs

    - cost to pay an senior admin to be available to support it

    - cost to have that admin come in on a weekend to a data center at 3AM to replace failed disk or debug other issues vs. clicking links in AWS from home

    ...and how does Cisco know what the cost of S3 storage is going to be even 6 mo from now? That's the best part of AWS - commodity pricing goes down automatically, while the cost of skilled labor to support enterprise capital metal always goes up.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022