The brakes went on NetApp sales in its latest quarter with no growth and profits more than halved, but it is not seeing a downturn which could lead to potential restructuring. The company recorded revenues of $1.445bn for its first fiscal 2013 quarter, 1 per cent down annually but a 15 per cent drop from the previous quarter. …
who's doing better?
Cisco+Netapp flexpod or Cisco+EMC combo whatever it's called?
Re: who's doing better?
I would say IBM PureFlex looks the most promising.... Cisco and EMC are breaking up over EMC's decision to take a swing at Cisco's core business with Nicira, so that combo (VBlock) doesn't look like it has a rosy future.
NetApp makes a good filer, but it is an expensive way to handle file serving. The major storage players, EMC and IBM, have caught up with their advantages with low cost products that do, more or less, the same thing.
Re: No mystery
No one buys NetApp (or EMC or IBM) because the products are low-cost; they buy them because they're reliable and have a rich feature set. If you want cheap, buy a Linux server, run Samba on it, and throw a big wad of direct-attached storage at it.
Re: No mystery
Agree, lower cost as compared to NetApp, but not low cost in a general sense. EMC and IBM have figured out that if they just add NFS to their mid-range arrays, VNX and V7000, people won't need to go buy a filer appliance. NetApp understands this which is why they are pushing unified storage (defensive play).
There's a lot of mention of IBM as a major storage player ... since when? What are they, like 4th in terms of market share after EMC, NetApp and HP. Hardly warrant muttering in the same breath as EMC. Pureflex most promising? Hmm. Again, you seem to be ignoring thr 3/4 options which the market suggests are 'better'. And NetApp pushing Unified storage as a defensive play? You do realise that NetApp started the concept of unified storage?
It's not about file serving, it's about data serving
Hello all, Dimitris from NetApp here.
Indeed we invented unified storage and it has been thus for 11 years now. There's no extra box needed to do various protocols and replication - the same OS does it all. Putting a gateway in front of a storage system doesn't necessarily create a coherent solution (invariably the block and file bits end up having way too different capabilities).
There are actual customer benefits to true unified storage:
Reliability and performance are great.
By default there's protection against lost writes, torn pages and misplaced writes, in addition to standard dual-parity write-accelerated RAID.
No, it's more about a difference in philosophy. NetApp does few acquisitions and prefers to do stuff in-house, the rest either OEM NetApp gear and/or rely heavily on acquisition.
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- Review Apple iPhone 6: Looking good, slim. How about... oh, your battery died
- Crawling from the Wreckage THE DEATH OF ECONOMICS: Aircraft design vs flat-lining financial models
- +Comment EMC, HP blockbuster 'merger' shocker comes a cropper
- Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia