the storage anarchist

1.042: modular storage - what's in a name?

OK. I did the last one. Now it's your turn.

What is the definition of modular storage?

It sure seems that I really got under the skins of the Dancing Giraffes over at NetApp with my "Flash Dance" expose of how slowly the competitors are embracing the value of flash technology.

First there was their uninformed challenge to the term Enterprise Flash Drives. Not surprisingly, everyone else (except NetApp) seems now to understand that indeed there is a sufficient differentiation among solid-state storage devices to justify the "enterprise" classification, just as we also distinguish enterprise disk drives.

The second salvo from NetApp comes in the form of a brandy-new blog, authored by a pool of NetApp engineers, although it seems Mike Riley has taken the lead role, authoring the first 3 posts. In the latest post, Mike seizes the opportunity to a) cast me as an angry villain, b) offer me a hug, and c) assert that the last economic downturn fostered the era of "modular storage" and the end of monolithic storage's world domination.

Hence my question: what the heck is "modular storage" (as you can see from that link, even Wikipedia doesn't seem to know).

Mike continues with an outlandish assertion that "Hardware offers zero differentiation".

I guess I can agree with Mike in the sense that we all can use the same parts to make our products. But there does seem to be rather significant differentiation based on what components we actually do choose to use.

For example, the fact that Symmetrix DMX4 natively supports EFDs today, while NetApp still doesn't support flash drives of any sort with their mainstream storage arrays is pretty highly differentiated.

EMC is delivering the value, while NetApp is bringing forth more people rappers dancers.

And seriously, I am interested in hearing how you'd characterize or define "modular storage" these days…does the term even have meaning any more?

Oh, and thanks for the hug, Mike. You'll never know how much I needed it this week!

technorati tags: modular storage,flash drives,EFDs,enterprise flash drives,EMC,Symmetrix,DMX4,NetApp

1.041: Seagate drops SSD patent lawsuit against STEC

I don't usually do this, but the news is particularly relevant given my most recent two blog posts.

ComputerWorld: Seagate drops SSD patent lawsuit against STEC

STEC Announces That Seagate Has Dropped All Claims Alleging IP Misappropriation and Dismisses Lawsuit

 

technorati tags: enterprise flash drives,EFDs,SSDs,solid state storage,SLC,MLC,EMC,STEC,ZeusIOPS,Seagate,Symmetrix,CLARiiON,lawsuit

1.040: efd - what's in a name?

It seems that at least some of the Flash Dancers I called out in my last post are embarrassed to admit that their dance moves aren't all that awe-inspiring.

Other's seem intent on proving that they actually can't dance at all, like the Giraffes in Giles Andreae's book.

Or so it seems in the viral blogger war that's broken out over on one of NetApp's blogger's site (where else?).

At the root of the debate is EMC's use of the term "Enterprise Flash Drive," or EFD. Seems that representatives of at least two of the Flash Dancers (HP and, you-guessed-it, NetApp) have taken issue with this term, calling it a "new acronym" that proves that EMC "doesn't have a clue how to use flash technology at all."

This from a company that to date has delivered nothing flash-based to market other than a simple qualification of a third party solid-state storage device, and the as-yet-unfulfilled promise of a NAND-based PAM at some point in the future (as far as I can tell, they're only shipping DRAM-based PAMs to date).

Why am I not surprised? 

Because that's exactly what I meant about Flash Dancing – those that can't DO have to tap-dance around with competitor attacks and acrobatic misdirection to mask their inability to deliver.

But here's the thing – EMC didn't invent the term EFD as a marketing ploy. Nor did EMC bloggers all-of-a-sudden just start using it within the past couple of months.

No, the term has been used consistently since EMC's introduction of flash drive support back on January 14, 2008. In fact, my very first blog post on Flash drives described Enterprise Flash and EFDs.

Granted, that's before at least some of the anti-EMC attack squad were even participating in the blog-o-sphere, but that's hardly an excuse.

Given the confusion (and ruckus) that's spun up around the term, I thought I'd take a moment to explain what's behind EMC's intentional use of "EFD" instead of the more generic "SSD."
 

1.039: don't miss the amazing vendor flash dance

UPDATED: 17 Feb 2009 - changes in green

Flash dancing was a form of tap dance evolved in 1920s-1930s which combined tap with acrobatics.

That description pretty much sums up what Sun, HP, Hitachi, IBM and NetApp have been doing (and saying) about Flash Storage over the past couple of weeks. Some are tap dancing around their continual delays in getting product to market, while others have resorted to high-wire theatrics to cover up the fact that they’re still nowhere near ready to integrate flash tech.

And almost all of them have finally realized that EMC was right over a year ago – the first place we’re going to see benefits from flash technology is indeed as a new tier in high performance storage arrays. That’s right, after a year of excuses and a cacophony of claims that EMC’s introduction of Enterprise Flash Drives (EFDs) wasn’t innovative, today we find virtually every storage vendor (with one major exception) having announced that they, too, will soon be shipping EFDs in their arrays.

And every one of them has chosen the very supplier (STEC) and the same drive (ZeusIOPS) that EMC introduced to the world over a year ago.

To be honest, I’ve expected all along that this is where we’d be at this point in time, but I surely didn’t think it would take them this long to admit figure out that array-based EFDs is where they should start.

Where we are today is remarkable, and no one can argue that we’d be here were it not for EMC’s vision and investment in bringing the game-changing NAND technology to market ahead of all expectations.

But though the road we’ve travelled to get where we are today is relatively short, it has been littered with some remarkable Flash Dancing (and FUD) from the competition.

Let’s take a look at each of these vendors journeys on this Road to Flash, shall we?

WARNING: this one’s long – probably the longest ever. My apologies…I had lots to say

1.038: val - exposed

A blogger's credibility is all that stands between valuable insight and total irrelevance.

Credibility is built upon the integrity of truth and humility: the basis of arguments and opinions on facts, and the ability to admit when your facts or your conclusions are wrong. Over the past couple of years I've had the opportunity to help several Fellow Bloggers realize that their arguments were based on mistaken understandings, misleading information and even urban legends. I've also had the opportunity to have my own misunderstandings and misrepresentations called out by my readers and peers. My own credibility is fundamentally important to my core being, and so I hope I can get away with saying that I've done a pretty good job of admitting (and correcting) my mistakes, just as many of my fellow bloggers have had the fortitude and integrity to admit and correct theirs.

But I'm clearly not having total success in my on-going efforts to keep us all honest, as Chris Mellor explains in his careful and patient analysis of a tangle started last week by Fellow Blogger Val Bercovici over at NetApp.

Go ahead, take the time to read Chris' article – it's the sort of thing you wouldn't want to hear from me first.