the storage anarchist

1.009: fun with numbers (and charts)

One thing I've grown to depend upon over my past 13 months of blogging is that Fellow Blogger Tony Pearson will try and refute, twist and manipulate anything I say that could be construed as a challenge to IBM and/or its products. Guaranteed action/reaction.

It took him a couple of weeks to get around to responding to my post on GDDR vs. GDPS, but he didn't let me down.

And true to form, our resident Mr. Pennybags-lookalike spares no opportunity to misrepresent the facts in IBM's favor. Sure, you can run compile your own open-source version of Linux to run on IBM mainframe hardware as he says, but I sincerely doubt anyone would ever do that. That's awfully expensive hardware to be running generic home-brewed Linux on...

But fact is that you can't get IBM mainframe hardware from anywhere else but IBM, nor can you license the software necessary to run your z/OS-, z/VM-, z/VSE-, or z/TPF-based applications from anyone but IBM. And while GDPS might indeed support third party storage, the pre-requisite is that the storage vendor have licensed and implemented bug-compatible equivalents of PPRC and FlashCopy.

Hardly an "open system."

No, a real "open" version of GDPS would natively support TimeFinder and SRDF instead of the feature-limited IBM wanna-bee alternatives.

And though indeed EMC's GDDR supports only a subset of the capabilities of IBM's GDPS, that subset is pretty much 100% of what the vast majority IBM's GDPS customers are deploying - two site automated disaster restart for their geographically dispersed IBM z/OS-based Parallel Sysplexes running on IBM Series "z" hardware.

Yet GDDR costs SIGNIFICANTLY less to implement and maintain than IBM's GDPS for this same functionality. Does the same thing that most people need, for less. Plain, and simple...

To that fact, TonyP would have you believe that EMC is offering GDDR below cost - but you'll have to trust me on this one, nothing could be further from the truth.

No, the simple reality is that IBM has long been taking advantage of it's position as the sole-source provider to charge a massive premium for its mainframe products (hardware, software AND services). I'll go so far as to say that EMC's and IBM's costs to deploy their respective disaster restart solutions are probably very close to identical - IBM just charges more. A LOT more.

Which is why TonyP is throwing up all the FUD he can muster: he hopes to diffuse the very real threat to the exorbitant profits that GDPS has been delivering to IBM's bottom line.

Go figure....

 

1.008: emc world 2008 - the follow up begins

Most of us have managed to find our way home from Sin City, and now we deal with the rapid decompression as we reenter the atmosphere of EMC World, the Work Edition.

Thankfully, those of us who are US-based had the extra 24-hours afforded by the Memorial Day holiday.

Lots was learned at EMC World, both by our customers and by the EMC developers that ran nearly 100% of the sessions. For customers, future IT strategies will be tuned to better leverage the current and future technologies; and for development, a better understanding of customer requirements and use cases will serve to refine the future products and implementations. Enabling and leveraging this symbiotic relationship between supplier and consumer is the foundation of what EMC World is all about.

If this was your first EMC World, I'm sure you were overwhelmed by both the breadth of topics and the unfettered access to the people who create these products.

And if you've never been to an EMC World (aka Wizards, aka Tech Summit), then you're probably wondering what all the hype has been about.

I'll use the words of a customer to explain...

 

1.007: the most amazing thing I saw at emc world 2008

As things wind down on the last day of EMC World 2008, I thought I'd take a break to reflect on what I thought was the highlight of the show.

For me, it wasn't any of the "scheduled" events.

Don't get me wrong, the Goo Goo Dolls were great - especially if you're a fan.

Billy Crystal? Hilarious - as long as you don't mind being called a nerd, or being told that your job of managing the world's most important information assets is "bleeping boring." (Most of us already knew that anyway.)

The technical sessions (close to 500 in total, counting those run twice) - well, judging by the packed rooms and the absolutely exhilarating buzz in the halls between sessions and in the Solutions Pavilion, I'd say that the overwhelming majority of attendees will agree that they got their money's worth - and then some.

For me, though, the most amazing thing I saw was a 3-foot high stack of pool balls, part of two-time U.S. Trick Shot Champion of Pool Chef Anton's show in the EMC Select booth. The OSG insists that nothing beats booth babes in bright-colored T-shirts - well, this guy did yoeman's duty pulling the customers into the booth every 1/2 hour for a 15-20 minute show of magic and trick pool shots wrapped around the requisite banter hawking the importance of buying partner products directly from EMC.

As you can see in the second photo, Chef Anton has stacked pool balls 14 "stories" high - including a second story sporting ball-stacked-on-ball. What he does next is nothing short of amazing, and I was able to capture it all on film...
 

1.006: enterprise flash: when speed is what you need

I wish I had come up with that title for the presentation I'm about to give here at EMC World, but I didn't. Instead my session has the awe-inspiring title of "Performance Best Practices: Symmetrix Flash Drives."

Network World gets the credit for the title of this post. It is actually the headline for the podcast interview that I did with them on the differentiation and benefits of the new Enterprise Flash Drives that EMC has been shipping for the Symmetrix DMX-4 since Q1'2008.

Gotta admit the timing of this podcast is interesting, though. Not only am I presenting a superset of this discussion at EMC World today, but this morning Hitachi did a 180 on their prior nonchalance over flash technology That's right, despite HHSNBN's repeated public denials that there is any reason for anyone to need flash drives, Hitachi today announced that they indeed did intend to announce something about adding some kind of flash drives from one or more unspecified vendors in an unknown capacity point  (or points) with undefined performance and reliability to their storage lineup sometime late in Q4 (whether calendar or fiscal Q4 was apparently not mentioned).

Gotta love the specificity!

I hope to post more on both topics later this week (both my EMC World flash presentation and Hitachi's latest attempt-to-catch-up-and-stop-the-bleeding announcement)

For now, here's the link my enterprise flash interview on  Network World Panorama.

Enjoy!

 

technorati tags: enterprise flash drives,EMC,Symmetrix DMX-4,Network World Panorama,SSDs,flash SSDs,HHSNBN

1.005.2 hitachi hits new lows (reposted)

Notice: I withdrew this post yesterday afternoon after receiving a challenge from a commenter who insisted that I was mixing up Hitachi's disk drive results with their storage array business. After carefully reviewing Hitachi's published results, I am convinced that the revenue growth numbers I used for Hitachi's storage business are correct (and exclude HGST). Therefore, I have reinstating my post intact, with the addition of a new "Hitachi Math" section (in blue) below.

Hitachi announced their earnings this past Tuesday (May 13th), and their Storage Solutions results (among others) were particularly gloomy. Not as bad as the free-fall in plasma TV sales in the US that they experienced, maybe, but dismal nonetheless.

In what is their fiscal Q4, once high-flying Hitachi only managed to eek out storage revenues that were down 1% from a year ago and down 3% from last quarter, while both EMC and IBM (if you include Tape) actually grew revenues double digits Y/Y in the same period. It marks a notably downward trend in Hitachi's Storage Solutions revenue growth over the past couple of years, as can be seen in this chart:

And Hitachi's projections for the future was for even more revenue contraction for this quarter and next - shrinking perhaps another 5% before they expect a turn-around, they said.

more hitachi math

As I noted above, the above results were challenged yesterday with an assertion that the "decline" was due to HGST. Fact is, these numbers are taken directly from Hitachi's earnings supplement, where they report "Storage Solutions" (array hardware, software and services) separately from "Hard Disk Drives" (see the top of page 2).

You'll note that Hitachi reports by halves (wouldn't want to make it easy to figure quarterly results now, would you?) - but if you go back to last quarters' results, you can do the math to verify that their Storage Solutions revenues were up 2% Y/Y in FQ3'07 and down 1% Y/Y and 3% Q/Q in FQ4'07 - just like I said.

In researching the accuracy of the numbers used in the chart, I was also allowed to see a couple of financial analyst's reports that included additional revenue insights provided them by HDS executives. While I cannot reprint specifically what these analysts published, I must say that there is something that smells an awful lot like Hitachi Math in their reports. Perhaps they just misunderstood what the HDS execs told them, but the numbers the published in their reports simply don't add up.

More importantly, since HDS only sees revenues excluding Japan, their perspective undoubtedly skews any possible analysis - especially since it's not clear whether HP and/or Sun storage revenues are reported through HDS or if they go directly to Hitachi Ltd. (I'm pretty sure they go directly to Japan).

And if revenues really weren't shrinking, then why the heck would HDS execs be trying to spin the story with Wall Street in the first place?

Bottom line: Hitachi Headquarters reported (and documented) that FQ4'07 Storage Solutions (ex-hard disk) was down 3% Q/Q and down 1% Y/Y - just like I said.

And on top of declining revenues, word on the street is that morale in Hitachi's US field operations is at an all-time low. Nobody seems to know if morale is suffering from the recent out-sourcing of customer service, the collapsing of the former solution/consulting business with the former Hitachi Data Systems subsidiary, or the new Japanese management that are running the new US holding company now. Or maybe it's something else?

Given that the flagship USP-V is nearly a year old, it seems very odd that revenues would be shrinking at a time when the new system should be really starting to gain traction.

It all makes me wonder...
 

1.004: are you wasting money on your mainframe dr solution?

You are if you've invested in IBM's Geographically Dispersed Parallel Sysplex (GDPS®).

It is widely understood that IBM derives a significant percentage of its profits off of its installed base of "Z" mainframe customers. When there are really no other options for either the hardware or the system software, it is a given that customers will be paying more than if there were real competition.

If you're an IBM mainframe customer, you are - by definition - IBM's profit stream. And there are enough of you that it adds up to some pretty darn interesting numbers.

That IBM has nearly perfected the art of vendor lock-in is inarguable - Mr. Pennybags himself (TonyP) took two whole blog posts to reiterate the ways IBM can legally take away any hope of choice so as to maximize your contributions to their bottom line (see: The Pot and the Kettle and More exploration into Vendor Lock-in - combined they are a comprehensive tutorial on the subject, from an obvious expert).

So, if you need a mainframe to run your business, today you really have no choice but to buy that mainframe (and the operating software) from IBM. For a fair -if not competitive - price, I'm sure (NOT!).

And if you need comprehensive multi-site disaster recovery? Lucky you - IBM will happily sell you a comprehensive GDPS engagement to automate your DR fail-over (and hopefully fail-back). Imagine, months, if not years, of IBM GS folks on-site, tinkering in your environment, crafting and testing proprietary DR automation scripts for you - right before your very eyes. And for no more than couple of million smackers to start (depending upon how much you need to fail over, in both MIPS and GBs), plus ongoing maintenance and consulting fees for upgrades.

Such a Deal!

And you'd better enjoy it, because you really don't have any choice in the matter.

Until now, that is...
 

1.003: maybe it really isn't all about the hokey-pokey

If you haven't read yesterday's post yet (1.002: that just about says it all) you probably should do so before proceeding with today's.

After yesterday's post, I received the following email from an EMC colleague that I've worked very closely with over the years:

Hi Barry,

Your most recent blog entry reminded me of a B-school paper I wrote equating brand equity (one of - if not the most - critical element for long term success) to trust.  Enjoy!

-Tom

Context: circa 2002

After I read the attached paper, I immediately asked Tom if he'd mind if I posted it here in my blog, and he readily agreed. So here it is...

The Technology Brand
Bridging Companies Through Inevitable Lifecycle Troughs
Copyright © 2002 Tom Broderick. Reprinted With Permission.

Hopefully you'll find his paper as interesting (and relevant) as I did.

Tom is another one of those smart people I am fortunate to work with. I'm proud to say that I learned a ton from him - most of it while I was his "manager" (though looking back on it, I'm not quite sure who was managing who ). I do know that I owe most of my understandings about the business and operational side of Symmetrix to him.

And FWIW: I'm not casting any aspersions on anyone with this trust theme. It is just something that hit me smack between the eyes yesterday...one of life's "aha" moments...

Or maybe it's one of those over-50 things - I dunno!

 

technorati tags: brand value,branding,brand equity,trust,tom broderick,business lifecycle,product lifecycle,business strategy,smart people,EMC,Symmetrix

1.002: that just about says it all

When I'm not calling attention to the foibles and FUD being tossed around like spring pollen by Symmetrix wanna-bees, I usually spend a large part of my day helping EMC's customers, prospects and sales teams understand what Symmetrix is really all about.

Earlier this week, I spent the day with the EMC SPEED Gurus at their annual SPEED Summit. These are the men and women who set the appropriate performance configurations and expectations in pre-sales situations, and/or implement them post-sales. (During this annual Summit, we provide the Gurus with in-depth understanding of the performance characteristics of virtually every aspect of Symmetrix, as well as its competition. Consider them Armed and Dangerous)

Then today, I was in back-to-back discussions of current and future Symmetrix capabilities with two different long-time EMC customers in the Hopkinton EBC.

The discussions with both audiences were similar - centered around the recent enhancements delivered for Symmetrix DMX3 & DMX4, including Enterprise Flash Drives, Virtual Provisioning, Symmetrix Compatible Flash(copy) and the rest of the features delivered in Enginuity 5773. And of course we spent some time looking towards the future of storage technology, and how EMC is evolving Symmetrix to leverage key technology changes that are likely within the next few years.

Throughout these discussions, I am repeatedly struck by the notion that as interesting as all the technology is, it wasn't why I am asked to meet with these audiences. It hit me that no matter how much focus we put on performance, availability, scalability, competition or even the "efficiencies" (as in utilization-, energy- and cost-efficiency), that wasn't what was most important about these meetings.

No, as a member of the executive team that defines and drives the Symmetrix business, I'm there (and here, in fact) for a very basic purpose.

 

1.001: this is like déjà vu all over again

Is it just me, or have IBM's storage execs suddenly started sounding like their mainframe execs used to a few decades ago?

Seems that every day someone else over there at Big Blue wants to go on record insisting that the best IT solution is one that is supplied by a single vendor - end-to-end integration, replace the "stickiness" of unique solutions with the "stickiness" of IBM software. And all that.

In Andy Monshaw's interview with eWeek.com, he makes it pretty clear that he believes that the best IT solution comes from a single vendor, with end-to-end integration. As in: buy your servers, your storage, your networking, your applications and your services all from IBM. Don't worry about vendor lock-in, because you'll be able to put IBM SVC kit in front of your old third party gear and do things the Blue Way with little or no hassle.

Oh, and really fast flash-based storage simply isn't good enough (go figure, since they don't have that in their portfolio). No, apparently (according to Andy) you're going to need to integrate flash into every aspect of your compute platform before you can gain any measurable value.

Bullship, I say to that: Bullship!

Andy goes on to say he no longer needs to "sweep the floor" - that an unintended benefit of the SVC is that customers no longer have to be locked into their storage platforms (as if they ever where - really).

But don't be fooled - despite the eloquent words, make no mistake: in Andy's vision, you'll still be handcuffed. He'll just paint whatever you have on the floor IBM Blue with his SVC spray paint.

It's what's best for the customer, he asserts.

In Andy's world, apparantely, there's nothing wrong with vendor lock-in, so long as you're wrapped from head to toe in IBM Blue.

Go figure!