« 2.024: stuck in the middle with hu | Main | 2.026: what's in a name – ds8700 »

October 07, 2009

2.025: r.i.p. ds8300

The pain and agony is finally over.

After nearly 3 years of denial, we now have proof-positive that the IBM DS8300 has been unceremoniously removed from life support. I've been told of numerous prospects whose IBM account teams vehemently denied the impending introduction of the DS8700 during the last quarter, even as EMC account teams asserted (with confidence) that the DS8300 was indeed on its deathbed.

True to my prediction back in February, the DS8700 intro is now inarguably imminent…see for yourself with this Google search. And the word is that many customers actually received quotes for the new DS8700 over the past several weeks.

Pity those who were suckered into buying a DS8300 this year (remember, I tried to warn you!)

This time I'll not play the role of truth-in-marketing (as I did for the XIV intro), so you'd better buckle your seat belts for another round of Meaningless Marketing coming from Big Blue as they try to convince you that the aging and decrepit Sharkitecture has been resuscitated with the magic face cream of P6 processors and the life-giving breath of flash drives.

i sincerely doubt that any of these will even come close to overcoming the inherent shortcomings of that architecture, though. Already I'm seeing outlandish claims that the DS8700 has ASTONISHING improvements for "distinct" workloads – which probably means they found some benchmark that looks good, even as the non-distinct workloads realize little or no new value.

Word is the DS8700 is part of next Tuesday's set of weekly IBM announcements, so it should be a fun couple of weeks in the blogosphere sifting through the FUD and marketing misrepresentations.

Cue TonyP!

 

 technorati tags: ,,,,

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834c659f269e20120a6204ea9970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 2.025: r.i.p. ds8300:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

TimC

Huh, that's a funny take on "what you said". I don't recall you EVER saying the DS8300 was going to be REPLACED, you did however claim the DS8000 line was "dead".

http://thestorageanarchist.typepad.com/weblog/2007/10/0045-pushing-da.html

Congratulations on now changing your story to "I told you the DS8000 was getting a hardware refresh". Here, let me make an astounding prediction as well: sometime in the next 3 years, the V-Max will be replaced by an updated piece of hardware". Were you also "warning" your own customers a year ago not to buy a DMX because you had a hardware replacement in the works?

SRJ

TimC - couldn't have said it better myself!

BarryB - Hilariously ridiculous.

the storage anarchist

Yuk it up, guys, but it's going to take more than a new processor, undersized (and over-priced) Flash Drives, a pay-for-use pricing scheme and a shiny new model number to make this aging architecture competitive.

If it weren't for mainframe attach, the DS8K line would have been shut down ages ago. And even with that lifeline, the z Team probably wish they'd put the old girl out of her misery - they probably could have avoided this latest round of charges of monopolistic behaviours if they weren't lugging around a clearly inferior storage platform to boot.

Face it, the Shark has clearly lost its bite.

SRJ

Yep - IBM's "aging" "inferior" POWER architecture just isn't suited for high performance storage...

Oh...wait...new SPC-1 benchmark world record?! With that same "aging" and "inferior" POWER architecture?!?!

This can't BE!!! DS8000 has been dying/dead for YEARS!!! Must. listen. to. EMC. FUD.

william bishop

Dunno Barry, you did walk right into that one....

SRJ

Forget about my comment?

the storage anarchist

Sorry, SRJ, been a busy few days.

The DS8000 series architecture is just a wee bit different than the SPC-killer P6 system. Aside from using short-stroked SSDs on a direct connect set of SAS bridges, and the fact that a DS8K can only be configured into TWO partitions, that AIX config avoided totally the overheads associated with external storage arrays.

As an example of how to optimize a server platform for maximum I/Os, it ain't bad, (although I suspect Sun's F5100 might give it a run), but the fact that the configuration left so many cores unused demonstrates that the arrangement was less than optimal.

I'll go out on a limb here, but I seriously doubt that same server could get the same results with any configuration of a DS8000 storage array as external storage.

But then, I've been proven wrong before...

JosephZhou

I dunno what you people talking about here --

About the new SPC-1 result, Power 595 with 32-way dual-core Power6. The test utilized 48 cores on 24 processors.

The DS8700 uses dual 4-way Power6 controllers (8 processors).
So DS8700 should do about 1/3 of the Power 595 SPC-1 result.
But that would be lower than DS8300 SPC-1 result!

Hence, this Power 595 number is meaningless for DS8700, because there is just no way Power5 outperforms Power6.

the storage anarchist

@JosephZou -

I've never seen anyone actually try to compare two obviously different implementation architectures by using simple math...and I honestly don't know what you are trying to say.

I will observe this, though, IBM is claiming that the P6's benefit the DS8700 to the tune of 50% more IOPS than the DS8300Turbo, and the PCIe interconnect replacement of the 8300's RIO-G results in 150% MB/s improvement.

Clearly, the performance of a storage array is not limited by CPU power alone...and I thus maintain my assertion that the POWER Server SPC-1 results bear no indication of the expected performance for the DS8700.

And in fact, those results should be disallowed by the SPC, since they are not a benchmark of external storage, it's a measure of a server with direct-attached JBOD.

It's an apples and bubble gum comparisons...

JosephZhou

@theStorageAnarchist

Yeah, that's exactly what I wanted to say - the new Power595 benchmark does not relate to DS8700 performance. :-)

I thought you were trying to relate - you said "but I seriously doubt that same server could get the same results with any configuration of a DS8000 storage array as external storage"

We are actually in agreement that there is no relation. Cool.

The comments to this entry are closed.

anarchy cannot be moderated

about
the storage anarchist


View Barry Burke's profile on LinkedIn Digg Facebook FriendFeed LinkedIn Ning Other... Other... Other... Pandora Technorati Twitter Typepad YouTube

disclaimer

I am unabashedly an employee of EMC, but the opinions expressed here are entirely my own. I am a blogger who works at EMC, not an EMC blogger. This is my blog, and not EMC's. Content published here is not read or approved in advance by EMC and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of EMC.

search & follow

search blogs by many emc employees:

search this blog only:

 posts feed
      Subscribe by Email
 
 comments feed
 

 visit the anarchist @home
 
follow me on twitter follow me on twitter

TwitterCounter for @storageanarchy

recommended reads

privacy policy

This blog uses Google Ads to serve relevant ads with posts & comments. Google may use DoubleClick cookies to collect information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide ads about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and your options for not having this information used by Google, please visit the Google Privacy Center.

All comments and trackbacks are moderated. Courteous comments always welcomed.

Email addresses are requested for validation of comment submitters only, and will not be shared or sold.

Use OpenDNS