* Posts by FDavids

16 posts • joined 19 Mar 2014

Fresh and fast little flashers from NetApp

FDavids

Re: Confused

"The All Flash startups have one product beating NetApp's 3 product lines."

Yes, that may explain why Pure dropped from #1 to #5 in Flash market share (#4 if you combine EMC+Dell), Nimble doesn't even register on the IDC flash chart and why NetApp has moved from the #5 position to #2 and very close to DELL+EMC, and in front of HP and IBM on the latest IDC flash share chart. I can see how that can cause confusion. Which flash startups are beating them again? <sarcasnm>

“NetApp tries so hard to come across as "Enterprise"

As far as enterprise goes. NetApp has more US Federal Government market share than all other storage vendors combined. Maybe I am wrong, but I bet the US government is running some fairly "enterprise" stuff. NetApp runs the Oracle Database at CERN which are the largest and most complex scientific instruments in the world. NetApp also runs Guinness World’s record for largest SAP data warehouse at 12.1PB at SAP. Maybe these things aren’t “Enterprise”, not sure. <more sarcasm>

IBM, NetApp lose ground amid global storage systems growth, says IDC

FDavids

This new IDC format is not apples to apples

Not that any IDC format is fully apples to apples, but this one is the worst. Dell+EMC, IBM, and Hitachi for example sells mainframe storage which is a high revenue and high dollar product. Most other companies do not, so lumping them in together provides an unrealistic picture. If you were to compare all flash open systems storage for example, which is more apples to apples and where the entire industry is heading, the chart would be completely different. For example IBM and Pure have lost considerable ground in open systems flash according to the last IDC release while NetApp has grown considerably and is almost the same revenue as Dell/ EMC. This is a useless chart for apples to apples comparisons. IMO

FDavids

Re: Meh - its based on revenue

The next update will be available about March 11. It will have the Q4 2015 and full year 2015 charts. Hopefully El Reg provides commentary on both the revenue shipped and capacity shipped numbers.

FDavids

Re: Meh - its based on revenue

Mr. Nobody. I totally agree and the challenge with this article is that El Reg only tells half of the story. This has been a complaint of mine for a while. The IDC report referenced actually publishes both shipped revenue and shipped capacity. For some reason El Reg only comments on the revenue which can be misleading. As you said a vendor that is more expensive per TB may have actually shipped less capacity, but made more revenue making the analysis skewed. Being dramatic, think of it this way. Say vendor “A” ships 1PB of SAN for $1M and vendor “B” ships 2PB of SAN for $500K. Which one sold more? I would argue that the vendor “B” that shipped 2PB sold more storage than vendor “A” who only shipped 1PB but made more money.

This article states “IDC's quarterly storage tracker* has revealed that IBM and NetApp have lost the most ground, and HP and ODMs have gained most.”, but that is on a revenue basis. While the statement is still true on capacity, the numbers aren’t as dramatic. IBM’s revenues were down 9.6%, but their capacity shipped was only down 0.4%, less than one percent, meaning that basically they lowered their prices, but didn’t lose as much share as the 9.6%% would indicate. Same on NetApp, while NetApp’s revenue was down 12.8% on revenue, capacity shipped was only down 0.8%, again less than one percent. Also on the capacity shipped chart NetApp is #2 in capacity shipped behind EMC, but on the revenue chart is #4. Maybe this means that NetApp is simply lowered prices vs. lost 12.8% share. HP, the one who grew 5.3% revenue in this report only grew 0.6% in capacity shipped which puts them at a further distance than the “within a whisker” of NetApp as the article’s revenue only analysis indicates. So HP grew revenue 5.3%, but only grew capacity shipped 0.6%, which is more important, depends who you ask. HP may have just raised their prices or is selling more expensive product (Flash) than in the past. Either way, how much capacity they are shipping hasn’t increased at the rate of their gain in revenue.

Net is the revenue side of these charts is only half the story and I wish El Reg would report on both because at the end of the day, it is up to the reader to decide which metric, capacity shipped or revenue shipped is more important to them. Ideally, the revenue per TB shipped would be the best indicator for a reader who is analyzing storage because it would actually tell them who is expensive and who is not.

Why did Nimble sell and why did HPE buy: We drill into $1.2bn biz deal

FDavids

Re: Cisco: Be Bold!

Cisco isn't dumping SAN, they just partner with SAN vendors like NetApp, Pure and until yesterday Nimble and up until the Dell acquisition EMC. Why would Cisco buy the cow when they are getting the milk for free?

Revamped IDC Storage Tracker anoints Dell as external storage top dog

FDavids

This new IDC format is not apples to apples

Not that any IDC format is fully apples to apples, but this one is the worst. Dell+EMC, IBM, and Hitachi for example sells mainframe storage which is a high revenue and high dollar product. Most other companies do not, so lumping them in together provides an unrealistic picture. If you were to compare all flash open systems storage for example, which is more apples to apples and where the entire industry is heading, the chart would be completely different. For example IBM and Pure have lost considerable ground in open systems flash according to the last IDC release while NetApp has grown considerably and is almost the same revenue as Dell/ EMC. This is a useless chart for apples to apples comparisons. IMO

Pure unsheathes the FlashBlade, cuts out NetApp legacy system

FDavids

Re: doing some math

What do you mean by "But now we definitely need to factor in a 30% raid hit for NetApp and they don't have ANY efficiencies on their boxes" NetApp has inline compression plus dedupe, plus post write compression. How is that "don't have any effecencies"?

FDavids

Oooh, Pure replaced an old NetApp box

I replaced two old Pure boxes at two separate customers with NetApp recently. Can you write a big article about those also? AKA One sparrow doesn't make it Spring.

Go and whistle, IDC. The storage world's going to hell in a handbasket

FDavids

"Cheaper and Better Alternatives"

In regards to 1. Dell, EMC, HP, IBM, Fujitsu, and NetApp legacy arrays will see revenue falls as customers choose cheaper and better alternatives.

Disclosure, I work for one of these “legacy” vendors. Opinion is mine, not that of my company. One important fact that seems to get overlooked when talking about these “cheaper and better alternatives” is company viability. These “cheaper alternatives” in many cases are cheaper because those companies are selling at a loss to gain share. What good is a cheaper and presumably better alternative if the company you purchase it from goes out of business six months after you buy their product. Nimble is one example. 18 months ago, they were worth $4.5B on paper, today they are worth 10% of that. I am not saying Nimble will go out of business, but they have a hard financial road ahead of them. Violin already received their stock delisting warning from NYSE and many other “cheaper and better” startups are close to going under. Pure = Not profitable, Nutanix = not profitable, Nimble = Not profitable, Violin = not profitable and the list goes on and on. Most of these companies are not profitable and have no way to become so unless they raise prices or someone buys them. Few of them will get bought and most of them will lose their value proposition if they raise prices. So say what you will about the legacy vendors. They may be losing share, but are still profitable unlike practically all of the “cheaper and better”.

All Dell breaks loose in latest Gartner disk array magic quadrant

FDavids

Re: "NetApp has been losing market share,”

RE; "They know that for anything other than NAS, there's better value on the market"

Interesting statement since 60% of NetApp's install base is SAN, not NAS, and capacity shipped market share actually grew even though revenue market share slipped one half of one percent in the past year. NetApp isn't the little NAS company some perceive it to be SAN share is actually bigger than NAS. The market is heading back to NAS from block anyway, so that plays in NetApp's favor moving forward. NetApp is # 2 in revenue and capacity shipped behind EMC in Networked (SAN+NAS) storage. Bigger than IBM, HP, Dell and Hitachi.

P.S. My numbers aren't wrong. As stated previously, they came directly from IDC's latest chart.

NetApp falls into loss-making territory as yearly revenues drop 10 per cent

FDavids

NetApp isn't innovative, that is why they win awards.

Wow, all of this negative drivel on how NetApp isn't innovative, CDOT sucks, CDOT is bad for Flash, Bla, Bla, Bla, YET, NetApp wins the best of show award for at the 2015 Flash Memory Summit for its flash innovation and in addition wins three more awards for the best Unified Flash product, best NAS flash product and the best Infiniband Flash product. Who would have thunk that a company who all of the people posting comments here says their products suck so bad they are going out of business would win awards for their flash products. By the way, these awards by the way are voted on by IT professionals who buy and use the products, based on independent surveys.

Report: HP to SPLIT OFF PC, printer biz from enterprise wing

FDavids
FAIL

Two losers don't make a winner.

Hmmm. HP is losing PC business to Lenovo, Server business to Cisco, Printer and storage business to everyone. Not sure how splitting one big company who is losing share into two smaller companies that are losing share helps other than allowing shareholders to pick their poison.

Object storage bods Exablox: RAID is dead, baby. RAID is dead

FDavids

10x premium relative to retail pricing

"Vendors such as EMC and NetApp are just now supporting 4TB drives and charging a 10x premium relative to retail pricing"

While EMC and NetApp may charge a premium for drives, There is more to is than just the hard drive itself. Somehow I don't think Best Buy or NewEgg are going to send a live person out to your business at 3AM on a Saturday to fix your system or replace a failed drive when it is down and do that for 3-5 years as part of the price. I love how people say that they can just go to a retail store and buy a drive for less, you can do that, but there is more to data storage then just buying a drive off the shelf. It costs money to warehouse parts in every major city and have technicians available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to do repairs. Retail stores don't provide these services or incur the costs associated with them, so of course they can charge less.

Gartner deploys new converged-systems quadragon rankings

FDavids

Is Gartner confused

I don't get it. FlexPod has like 3x the market share of VCE yet Gartner ranks them a bit higher. Do customers know something Garter doesn't? <sarcasm>

Gartner networked storage suppliers: Behold the Reg spaghetti-graphic

FDavids

Question for El Reg

Why does El Reg only analyze the revenue charts from IDC/Gartner and not the capacity shipped charts?

If one company ships 1PB of storage for $10M and another ships 2PB of storage for $5M. Who actually sold more?

When I was a customer i didn't care about how much a revenue a company made on what they sold other than to see who is more expansive. As a customer what is equally if not more important is how much storage they actually shipped, as that actually shows how much of their product customers are buying and which ones might be worth considering. Revenue just shows how much vendors convinced customers to pay for their product. How about showing both sides of the story?

NetApp to 'realign', cut 600 jobs worldwide

FDavids

Re: CDOT naval gazing

I don't get how anyone posts that NetApp doesn't have tiering. NetApp has had tiering for 7-years and hybrid arrays for almost 3. Just because NetApp does it differently where the data is instantaneously copied, not moved, to faster capacity for immediate acceleration vs. waiting until the next day when it is too late, doesn't mean they don't have it.

Regarding the problem being CDOT, not sure where that comes from either. Agreed the transition from 7-mode to CDOT is not easy, but I have not come across any storage admin who says Nah, I don't care to have a system that I can scale up, scale out, retire controllers, tech refresh, swap out entire disk shelves etc without ever having to take an outage. Nope, no use for technology like that.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021