And Bod Makes Three

It is funny that whenever you write negative about NetApp, it is often that accusations of bias fly. I will admit that this rarely comes from the NetApp bloggers but there does appear to be vociferous chorus of what could be called 'Fanbois'. I can pretty much write whatever I want about EMC, HDS, HP or IBM (with the exception of XIV) el al and expect the criticism to be taken on the chin or at least rebuffed in reasoned and reasonable terms.

NetApp have a great product; they changed the NAS storage market, indeed arguably they created the market. Yes, I know I am ignoring Auspex and unlike many, I actually used an Auspex but it was NetApp which took the market by storm. NetApp are the currently deservedly the market leader in this space but I would suggest that currently that their technical lead is slowly been eaten away. The leader is there to be shot at and the bullets are flying. 

My good friends Chris and Ian have written a couple of blog entries; a bit critical but more importantly they ask some questions of NetApp. I think there are more questions to be asked. 

I cannot be the only one who is wondering why we have not seen a major hardware refresh in the Filer range; OnTap 8 probably drives the hardware harder and I do wonder if some of the restrictions around ASIS volume sizes are simply down to lack of sheer grunt in the existing Filers?  

Although we often say that the hardware is no longer important and it's all down to the software; it is important that the software runs on the best possible and most cost effective platform. The more grunt you have, the more that your software can do. And it is surprising that we've not seen a hardware refresh as it should be relatively easy to do but I suppose keeping the Filers on 'old' technology improves margins for NetApp. 

And as a unified storage platform; the vSeries especially could do with being able to support more ports/interfaces. 

As well as the hardware, there is also the Bycast acquisition; this area has gone particularly quiet and pretty much into stealth mode. In fact, I challenge you to find a link to  on the NetApp front page? It's actually hidden under Products >> Management Software; the same category as Sanscreen. In fact, Sanscreen is not something you hear a great deal about at the moment either.

EMC got complacent and let HDS and then NetApp make hay in their core markets. VMware gave NetApp a huge-in by advocating NFS when EMC's products were not strong in that place. It's very easy to get complacent when you are making money hand over fist and when at times it feels like your competitors are doing their level best to trip up.

Comments

[Tom Petrocelli]

Martin, I find this discussion fascinating. All technical arguments aside, it hits on two important aspects of all media but especially social media - civility and bias. We all have biases. It's human to be such. Our experiences and sometimes our responsibilities create them. We are not often even aware of them. As a vendor, one has to drink the Kool-Aid. It's part of the job. To admit your biases adds credibly not diminishes it. Kudo to you for doing so.
There is no excuse for lack of civility, especially competitiveness. It is, frankly, off putting and hence, terrible marketing. Passion is also not a good excuse to act in an uncivil manner.
I love that your blog has generated an interesting technical discussion and an interesting social one - a two-fer! Be proud.

[Erick Moore]

Danny hit it on the head with expandability. We bought a 3170 last year, and that system can expand to 6 loops. The problem is you only have 4 slots, and 3 are required for full loop expansion (if you want multi-path HA for each loop which of course you do). Without 10GB Ethernet onboard you have to make a choice between going 10GB for your IP storage, Flash Cache (formerly PAM), and full loop expansion. It boggles my mind that on such an expensive system I can't take full advantage of its capabilities.

E-

[Radek]

Martin,

I have a fair amount of systems integration experience with mission-critical (i.e. life & death) as well as business-critical systems myself. I analyze the storage marketplace every year as new projects come up. Vendor roadmaps are a key part of the planning process, but far from the sole criterion. Vendor reputation, viability, supportability and licensing costs dominate those criteria. Over the past 3 years, NetApp has been selected more often than not for many of my projects because they come up on top in that equation. That does not mean they are perfect, nor does it mean I have no criticisms of their products. However, my experience is that professional and discreet communications are the best way to obtain current and accurate roadmap information - rather than putting the vendor publicly "on the spot".

I strive to have a positive mutually beneficial relationship with my account team and the rest of the NetApp staff I am exposed to. Privileged information is just that. It is not a right. I don't abuse that privilege by posting incorrect information as fact, then lamenting why NetApp representatives don't coddle me with correct information at my beck and call.

I don't know him so I am not attacking Chris personally. I am objecting to his online actions, which are my only interactions with him. Those who know me understand that I don't suffer fools gladly. When someone claims to be an expert, they need to refrain from amateurish statements in their claimed fields of expertise.

Chris made several incorrect statements about flexvols which were easy to disprove via trivial RTFM efforts. He then went on to defend those incorrect statements using legacy storage constructs which don't apply to NetApp. Therefore judging by his words & actions he is neither an expert on NetApp, nor objective, although he still is independent by some definition of that word. As a result, Chris' blog is in my own personal "penalty box" because he cannot seem to write anything balanced about NetApp. Other readers will of course make their own objectivity assessments and feeder edits as appropriate.

Why the rant? Because as you say the storage vendor bloggers already spend enough time attacking each other with slanted versions of the truth. If we can't find refuge from spin on independent blogs, there is not much hope for the online storage community at large. A community which has been a valuable source of information for me in the past and for which I have many hopes in the future.

Radek

[ianhf]

Some interesting points and comments, and interesting to see how the same written words can be perceived & interpreted from different personal contexts.

So a couple of comments - firstly I know Chris well both personally and professionally, and value his options very highly & happily put my reputation in his hands any time. He is impartial, knowledgeable, experienced and works in the top tier of global storage businesses.

With regards to myself, I've worked in the IT infrastructure industry for longer than I care to mention. I'm a decent sized customer of all the main storage companies in over 30 countries, yes we have many PBs of each provider & , I meet with the top mngt of most companies on a regular basis. I am in a privileged position of seeing and influencing many products long in advance. Do I have any bias? Probably but not consciously - my main issue is with overpaying, under delivery & FUD. I'm flattered & surprised that people read my blogs & tweets, let alone if they resonate.

If there are issues with content validity I'd encourage vendors to take a hard think about how you communicate with the technical community.

Anyway its a Friday night, the wine is chilled and I've got more blogs to publish :)

[TimC]

Martin:
I agree. Just looking at the timeline on the wikipedia page, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet something should be coming. I can't really speak to why you see the responses you do from NetApp employee's, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's due to the climate that EMC has created in the market. Obviously that doesn't make it OK, but it is what it is I suppose.

This is where Chuck claims their sales staff and "thought leaders" are all good-hearted souls who wouldn't dream of throwing out FUD at any given opportunity instead of selling on merit. Yet a quick look at one of his high-level employee's Mr. Burke shows he's yet AGAIN throwing FUD against IBM and their DS line. *SHOCKING*

If you can't win on merit, revert to middle school antics and throw a tantrum.

Erick:
If you use SAS trays, there is no issue maxing out a 3170 while using PAM and 10Gbe.

[Martin G]

SAS trays don't help if you've gone down the vSeries route. But they are helpful in the FAS. However as a unified storage array, it could do with being able to support more ports.

And I just ignore Barry's blogs about other vendors stuff...especially the DS8K, I think he has one at home and is just covering up.I've said it before, blog about your own kit and let the users and independent bloggers do the critical analysis of you and your competitors.

[TimC]

Martin:
There's even less issue maxing out the system in a v-series configuration unless you've got 4+ arrays you're trying to virtualize... and at that point I'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason not to move to the 6000 series. The only time the limitation should come into play is with the legacy ESH shelves. However, that should have been obvious at time of purchase just looking at a spec sheet.

The ports aren't an issue, the pci slots are, but that's also why they've got the 6000 line-up. That's (number of ports) not really a NetApp specific problem though; you sure as heck can't get as many ports on a clariion or AMS as you can on a Symm or USP.

We all want our cake, right? :)

[Chris M Evans]

I find the comments on this post remarkably interesting. It appears most people can keep things civilised apart from one person who doesn't need to be named. I thank those who have come to my defence with their comments. In terms of Netapp bias, I'd ask to to regard the following posts: http://www.thestoragearchitect.com/2009/09/07/enterprise-computing-netapps-1000000-giveaway/ and http://www.thestoragearchitect.com/2008/10/06/could-netapp-make-a-virtual-nas-appliance/

Neither of the above are Netapp negative, in fact the first highlights a Netapp competition (which sadly I heard nothing further on).

I work on behalf of the customer. I make my money by providing advice and consultancy that helps custoemrs reduce their costs, implement the best technology and cut through vendor marketing. Inevitably, I write blog entries that challenge vendor claims. It's disappointing that some people (not necessarily the vendor themselves) can't cope with this.

I will continue to challenge vendor's positions when I believe they are not credible. I hold no bias either towards or against particular vendors, however I freely admit to liking certain technology - because I know it works for customers.

There are many, many instances of shocking vendor behaviour with customers that I'd like to talk about. I can't because they are commercially confidential and sensitive. What I try to do is talk in generalities that reflect the issues I've seen. This obviously forms my opinions.

Martin, thanks for widening the discussion with this post. Long may courteous discussion continue.

[Radek Kubka]

Guys,

A good friend of mine called me today mentioning this and some other blog post. To my surprise he has automatically assumed 'Radek' equals 'Radek Kubka' – turns out I am a 'recognizable' individual amongst Storage/NetApp community. So simply to differentiate & make things clear for people who may know me from other places: I am not the same Radek as the one who put a number of comments here.

Thanks,
Radek Kubka

[Yves Pelster]

Martin, in your article you're stating a sentence which worries me - you are saying that from IBM XIV you have not received a reasonable discussion upon 'prodding' them.
I do work (not only, but too) for XIV, so I have the highest interest in seeing the product discussed fairly and on a professional level.
If I can help, please send me an email.

...this post is on my very own behalf and I have not discussed that with my company...