* Posts by Big_JM

13 posts • joined 5 Oct 2015

Infinidat puts array to the test, says it 'wrecks' Pure and EMC systems


Re: block sizes matter

It's obvious you're a Pure employee because your comment was terrible and makes no sense. Infinidat clearly used the same block size/workload across all three arrays. Just because Pure markets 32K block size doesn't mean they actually use it. Pure markets a lot of things it doesn't do. Why would this be any different? In fact, this isn't even the first publicly released benchmark that's exposed how poorly Pure performs.

In fact everyone is missing a very important point in all of this: Infinidat KNEW that they could take advantage of Pure & Unity because they know, what most actual technologists know, both of those architectures are single node, CPU bound, based architectures.

Of course Infinidat's results are "rigged" in their favor. XtremIO did the same thing with its bogus VD Bench script. Of course Infinidat highlighted what their system could do. But that doesn't explain why Pure & Unity performed so poorly.

Think about it. Why didn't they test a VMAX 250? Could it be because they knew that the VMAX 250--which is also marketed as a "midrange" array--wouldn't suck? Why not a 3PAR? Or an HDS F400/F600?

They picked these two systems because they knew these systems are popular but both are highly overrated. Even if Infinidat could outperform an HDS or a VMAX or a 3PAR, the results would be MUCH closer than this and wouldn't be enough to differentiate it this way.

IO, IO, it's profiling we do: Nimble architect talks flash storage tests


You're right. Dimitris should invest in a chainsaw because his posts were TLDR for me too...


Everyone does. They just don't know it.

The world is all about workloads now. Technologists don't examine the details as much as they used to, this is true. BUT they still matter.

Applications all use IO sizes, that doesn't go away. And storage arrays still deliver IOPs, that doesn't go away. And a storage array is still limited by the amount of IOPs it can deliver with the smallest amount of latency, that also doesn't go away.

So, like it or not, all these things still matter. If Pure is overselling what their system is capable of then it's something to be explored. The fact that you think you don't care about IO sizes or IOPs shows you that their marketing is dangerous. Those things haven't gone away. They can't go away. That's just how data works.


Re: How about a benchmark test?

That's just an absurd comment. Incredibly absurd the more I think about it. My guess is you're either a Pure Storage fan or an employee.

Modern architectural designs should thrive in old benchmarks. Technology is an evolution. As workloads have changed so has technology had to change to keep up. The SPC-1 is very much a workload test. It wasn't "designed" for anything. It's a test that pushes multiple workloads at a system. The theory of the test is that the workload patterns would overrun caching algorithms and we'd see what the backend is truly capable of.

It's very much a relevant test. To say otherwise is absolutely irresponsibly reprehensible. It's a workload test and intensive one at that. Either run the test or don't. Denouncing the test, however, shouldn't be your option. It screams more about your lack of knowledge than it does anything else.

XtremIO soap opera latest: Cofounder Ehud Rokach steps aside


Well major release coming in 2017 huh? I guess those rumors are squashed...

...except...when was the last time a business/tech leader left BEFORE a major release? How smart is it to bring someone new in with only a few months BEFORE a major release that 'everyone is proud of'?

Are we talking product refresh or just another code upgrade? If it's just a code upgrade then the rumors are likely still valid. If it's a product refresh then this move, at this time, makes zero sense.

EMC XtremIO has its quirks but rumours of its death are overblown


What EMC is going through is very tricky right now and Chris is spot on. The fact that this system hasn't had a major upgrade in 3 years (since the destructive one) is very telling. Why announce an All Flash VMAX? Why introduce Unity? Especially when you spent the better part of two years touting XtremIO as the future of Flash and how it solves every problem. At the end of the day time will tell but there's no question about it: There's a reckoning in EMC's future. What survives, what doesn't will be interesting to see.

XtremIO heading for the bin? Total BS, thunders CTO Itzik Reich


This is an interesting situation, isn't it? The Register hears EMC is killing off XtremIO, EMC denies it. So of course EMC is right, aren't they? Not so fast. Where there's smoke...

EMC will talk revenue BUT everyone knows EMC over comp'd their sales force to push XtremIO. So while they talk 'revenue' the industry counters with the fact that they hand no problem killing off VNX/VMAX revenue for XtremIO. They have no problem killing off VNX revenue in favor of Unity. There's no reason they wouldn't kill off XtremIO in favor of Unity & VMAX AF now.

Now consider this fact, outside of bug fixes there hasn't been a single major upgrade to XtremIO since the infamous data wipe to upgrade to get compression issue. That's going to be more than 3 years now. In addition to that, when VMAX AF was announced EMC told us XtremIO would be "rearchitected" to support 3D Nand drives. We're still waiting. No mention of it at EMC World. No mention of it anywhere else. Even here, in this article, they could have shown the Register a viable roadmap under NDA and made this rumor go away once and for all. They didn't.

Maybe they're not killing off XtremIO. Maybe there is an actual roadmap. Who knows? We know for sure there is definitely a problem here. No one goes a year without a major announcement. XtremIO has now gone almost 3 and in that time EMC has released two alternatives to XtremIO. There's no way around that.

HDS freezes high-end storage hardware investment


Re: Symmetrix?..

VMAX (Symmetrix) has been in stark decline for a long time. Numerous systems have passed it by. The idea that HDS is, or was, its only viable competitor either lacks context or is willfully ignorant.

What we're seeing here is an industry trend over the last 3 years now. The monoliths--specifically EMC, HDS, & IBM--are going the way of the Dinosaur and each one is facing significant challenges with revenue generation.

Customers are saying that "big iron" is either overkill, not flexible enough, or some combination of the two. Smaller, simpler, flexible, and more agile systems have broken through and customers have jumped on board. Obviously HPE has benefitted the most with 3PAR but we're not alone. While Pure, Nimble, and a few others might have ugly balance sheets they are growing revenue and have much more credible 'mindshare' than the monoliths do with Flash.

EMC says Pure Storage dedupe is both in-line and post-process


EMC is right

This isn't a secret. If IO begins to overwhelm their single controller structure, the dedupe will go post-process. The CEO of SolidFire called it "mostly inline". I would go with that. I'm surprised there's a Register article about it.

And as for XtremIO--yes I agree. That array is riddled with failure points. Probably not wise to throw stones when you live in a glass house, on a glass street, in a glass town, of a glass state, in a glass country, propped up by toothpicks.

A tiny Violin plays as EMC tops all-flash array revenue chart


I think it's funny that the 3PAR numbers are wrong. I also find it humorous that "XtremJosh" chimed in to quote Pure's numbers were wrong. As if we didn't know who you were...

In my mind I read an article like this and I just think the author is pushing towards a 'pro-EMC agenda'. If I correct the 3PAR numbers you still see XtremIO on top:

2014 2015

Q1: 9M 59M

Q2: 12M 78M

Q3: 24M 71M

Q4: 58M 138M

A couple of quick notes. We entered this space late, admittedly. But even still the growth is explosive. In fact we're showing greater growth year-over-year than XtremIO @ over 130% for Q4 of FY '15.

And thankfully we have none of the ugliness that EMC brings to the table. Galvanizing a Sales Force to sell an unfinished and inferior product at the expense of customers as shown in their emails from the Pure litigation is just ugly. There's also no "impending doom" with Dell coming up nor is their a cannibal in my portfolio like VMAX AF.

We'll just keep making a better product and the numbers will eventually work in our favor. That mindset is what made 3PAR the #1 overall storage product in the market today. We'll just letting that do all the talking for us.

EMC mulled a Pure Storage buyout amid patent sueball tennis


In fairness, I think anyone can read your comments about Vaughn and see they were somewhat playful --at least that's the impression I get. Sort of like 2 basketball rivals talking trash.

And no one really believes the "never go negative" thing. Every time we hear you say "never go negative" it's like hearing the neighborhood gossip queen say, "I ain't one to gossip so you didn't hear this from me but..." Just lacks sincerity & authenticity.

Fun reading though...


This doesn't surprise me one bit. EMC is a Sales driven company and these emails completely show it. Push an inferior product with a superior sales force and you grow revenue and gain market share. Duh. It's great that these emails are coming out now because they're interesting but it's nothing we didn't already know.

At the end of the day this "flash war" isn't going to be won by a Sales company but by the better product.

DCIG rates top-selling EMC flash array as survey bottom-dweller


Re: Here's a vendor's response to DCIG shenanigans

And that vendor gets called out in the comments section...

Are people really that brainwashed by EMC that they fail to see DCIG actually has a valid point? XtremeIO doesn't have anything but speed. The more I look at it the more I think it's a fair ranking. Might even be a little generous...


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022