Re: Classy response
Agreed, Ziya Aral, DataCore's chairman, handled that with professionalism and tact. With a small side of STFU.
74 posts • joined 14 Aug 2010
Agreed, Ziya Aral, DataCore's chairman, handled that with professionalism and tact. With a small side of STFU.
This looks very suspect. Now most IT folks don't give a darn about Gartner, but C levels do.
What I thin kis suspect is where Veeam doesn't do well anything in the physical realm, let alone application level backups like SAP, Oracle, etc. How is that "Enterprise?"
EMC is messaging speciifc tools for specific workloads. That Enterprises don't want a single console, that was all the rage 10yrs ago. That DBA"s, Vmware Admin's etc have more needs than a "backup admin." As such, their tools are targeted at them, with a single reporting engine on top.
Some of the other changes like removing Dell, Asigra and Acronis is a smart move.
You're on crack if you think Vmware ESX 3.x and its feature set would suffice in the enterprise today.
There have been so many improvements in 4, and 5 to make the product scale'able, and handle larger and larger workloads, etc. Not to mention compatibility with newer apps and OS's. I guess for an SMB, a stripped down "entry-level," hypervisor would be an interesting sell... But then who wants to maintain two code bases?
Add to that, Flash (which was established back then) and HTML5 which was ONLY ratified in what the last two years?... Who can move that fast to build a new UI, change the entire ship's course with that? While also building in new features.
SDN, SDDC, and automation are rather large initiatives in many orgs, small, medium and uber large. NSX, VSAN, VCAC are available to follow roadmaps of the customers, as well as the market (for their own greedy valuations) Not sure if you ever worked for a manufacturer.... But large customers drive roadmaps. If a UPS, or AMEX wants X feature, and will commit to buying 10's of millions of dollars of VMware licenses over Y amount of years, Damn straight VMware will find a way to put it in. I'm pretty sure those companies are not looking to implement Windows 2000/2k3 with less than 8GB of RAM on smaller than 2TB workloads.
I don't disagree with their lack of cloud strategy. But they keep saying it's coming... With EMC still controlling some aspects, you really think that will change anytime soon?
60 drive top loading bays are not new. 5+ years ago this was a thing. I recall the Dell Equallogic "Sumo," offering this years ago. EMC has it. etc... The fact that it's still around, means that your issues are not really issues, since it's being used in large installations with success.
Even BackBlaze I believe in their continual evolution of storage chassis and HDD testing they publish, identified this as an issue, and have since made changes.
Simplisafe as a business has a fault. They are only a smidgen of a step above a traditional alarm company, but still act like a legacy alarm company.
Their customer communication SUCKS.
Add to that, they refuse to acknowledge the "Cloud." Things like IFTTT, integration into other devices like NEST, ECHO, etc...
Ask them about it, and a single person who is responsible for marketing and communication will reply with a canned response a hundred times over with the same BS corporate line. Proof is in their user forums about that...
I've been meaning to email their head developer and CEO via linkedin, but have yet to figure out their email aliases... So I haven't been putting much thought into it.
It's the alarm I wanted due to it's sensor options. But hate their lack of internet integration (without a subscription)
You obviously dont know what list and street price is. stick to your home built stuff though, since paying for quality kit is not for you by the sound of the whine in your voice about cost.
I for one think this is a brilliant idea.
New policies are being created to insure from cyber thefts and attacks. This isn't new. Organizations will decide if they need to insure against this type of scenario.
As part of the process, the insurer with their acquired security firm, would provide audits, analyze risks, adjust premiums accordingly... All while collecting the premium, but also up-charges or additional revenue from consulting, the audit's, hardening, etc...
It could be just another arm to an AIG or Zurich.
This doesn't sound great as a mere person, that you have to spend more. But for a business, or large organization, a necessary evil. For the insurer, another form of revenue.
If they give it away, they can call it a sale and recognize the FULL revenue value more than likely. smoke and mirrors for investors...
I'm more than confident a Unitrends customer, is not their target customer. You're too small.
Interesting as EMC will piss off Cisco majorly. And Dell will piss off many of their partnerships like nutanix and the like. Then there is the whole overlap of storage portfolios, where one is much stronger than the other. All of Dell's non-integrated acquisitions, the competing backup products, competing security, cloud, etc... I see no good to come from this at all.
Why in the F*ing world do shareholders have to come first? Why can't it be the customers and technology?
DCIG has been on HP's payroll for years. This isn't news. Often their reviews are so flawed, it's comical and downright false.
Some companies like EMC do not allow you to publish benchmarks without prior permission. So they do the next best thing, pull down a virtual edition of the product and try to test it in production in their little so called lab. Often that VM is a major revision behind. Or pull down every whitepaper and see if the answer is there to match their little feature matrix.
On the Symantec front, they use out of the box settings without tuning buffers, etc. You know, NBU basics...
What I wonder is, how many people really take DCIG as serious? Gartner and IDC are viewed much more favorable by CIO's I've known. DCIG is a small time rag leveraged by few vendors.
Really? Since 4.0? I think huge things have been refined over the years, perhaps not ground breaking, but they have taken things to the next level, and far exceeded the competitor space.
If vmware were to stop developing anything as of today, it would be 2+yrs before the competition even came close to offering similar enterprise features from scalability, HA, failover, 3rd-party plug-in integration, etc.
While the fundamentals are the same from 4.0 to today, everything is just IMO, better/bigger/faster. Of course it's thrown in a whole slew of complexity and licensing headaches too....
The customer's quote is funny to say the least. "recovery process was long and complicated."
What exactly was complicated? The data is restored in its native format to however it was written. Ergo, you restore no different than exagrid or any other dedupe appliance. How much of that was coached, vs customer words?
Add to that, many many times product swap outs are people coming of an aging platform, going to a new HW platform. How old was the "DataDomain," they were replacing vs the newest iteration of Exagrid? Not exactly apples to apples here. But I guess if you agree to be a reference customer and the vendor gives you free equipment, you'll say whatever you are told to say...
At the end of the day though, this grid enhancement is huge for Exagrid. But 700 customers is not tooting your horn either.
<-- Has been a reference customer and has played the game of free HW, or PS, more than once, and sold my soul to say positive things. But hey free is free, and I can live with that if it helped the business and solved a business challenge.
Ah yes, because their whole business was built upon Storage Foundation, their money maker...
I live in the Pacific Northwest locale (AK, WA, OR, and some surrounding states). While Hyper-V is around, it's probably 1 of 100 customers I meet. King County the largest county in WA, uses it. Since Microsoft is such a large contributor to local taxes, they support buying "local." Beyond that, hyper-V adoption is really not that big, nor accelerating. It just doesn't have the robust features needed that VMware has.
KVM on the other hand, and Oracle VM is picking up steam. I'm sure Nutanix which has a decent foot print here will pitch their upcoming hypervisor. Those mentioned, have more buzz than Hyper-V. I work for a large vendor here, and see customers from 50 employees to 5000+ employees. Hyper-V is just not that prevalent as you say. Perhaps in the SMB space maybe.
Symantec is big enough, even after their eventual split, to not do anything dynamic or game changing. They have a long development cycle, changes to the UI that would make the product "prettier," would take 3-5yrs if not more to actually see the light of day in production.
Damn the corporate world and the slow train it rides on!
*Full disclosure: Former happy symantec employee. I wish them the best, but product management is the biggest impediment to their products succeeding.
In the real world and not what a CEO says to appease investors, NetApp has been in a decline for years. The startup hybrid arrays like Nimble have been eating their lunch. EMC has taken their share, and sweetened the deals with VPLEX to make migrations easy, Of course there are the Pure's of the world and Tegile but those are isolated cases and workloads.
Where I used to battle NetApp and lose to features. I'm beating them for not being a scaleable product, or the whole story of ONTAP for storage and backup/DR is falling apart at scale; and products like Commvault/EMC/Veeam/ec are taking share minimizing the need for more expensive disk and snapshot space.
Perhaps NetApp should buy a backup software company to better round out their portfolio...
If you think RecoverPoint requires 150% additional storage, you're doing it wrong. Rule of thumb is to start at around 20% of capacity for your journal volumes. But that can vary based on change rate and retention.
A proper sizing and realistic understanding of your data is all that is needed. A blanket 150% sounds like fodder a competitor would spew.
VCE ain't cheap. Requirements for premium support, and other value added price increases over piece meal EMC/Cisco gear. However you get a single rack to install, power and uplinks. Then a single number to call for support L1/L2. With automatic transfers if needed for senior support at the respective OEM. There is value to it. But it depends on the needs of a customer.
What I'd like to hear is what VSPEX and their new BLUE gear means to VCE? Will KVM be an option next?
The sad thing about this AMA, is it was hosted by someone with ZERO clue about the products and zero technical abilities. He is a global brand manager, no more than a marketing person. His then online persona tried to be cool and collected, tried hard to have a swagger; but in reality he answered very little about Veritas and where it was headed.
A product manager would have been better, or even a technical product manager. Alas, reddit users got stuck with the marketing guy.
SPC is a relatively okay benchmark to cite, granted it may not have much real-world application to most customers, since they won't be buying a config near what was benchmarked.
A better joke on a benchmark is probably anything from DCIG, or how Symantec uses a special tool called Gen_Data to show dedupe numbers, or how DataDomain metrics are measured with a synthetic data tool as well.
Looking through the fud is half the battle!
I think you're mistaken. Steelstore doesn't compete with Spanning. Unless somehow Steelstore learned how to during the acquisition, to backup Google Apps, SalesForce.com, etc?
I think you mean, TwinStrata, which is now CloudArray or CloudGateway or something by EMC.
The sad part is there are two groups to appease here.
1. Investors who want a quick pay check.
2. The business and the people that work for said business that do well together, and not split apart competing against each other.
There is no middle ground in most cases. Greedy people are greedy. You can't make them be less greedy.
I don't see an issue. If anything your solution would be a cluster of a support nightmare.
In the EMC world, you would have specific array's for specific workloads. Need 5-9's of service, VMAX. VDI/database/high IOPS, Xtreme. Then there is Isilon, VNX, etc...
The alternative, buy multiple arrays from NetApp, Pure, Nimble, HP, etc... Few players have a solid all encompassing product line. Yes many of EMC's overlap to a large degree, but they are targeted workloads, when you have a great EMC SE to work with that can cut the BS. NetApp was on the right track for a number of years, but have gotten long in the tooth and near monolithic.
Hold on now, EMC recently purchased TwinStrata this past year, and that is almost exactly like this product. It's a physical or virtual gateway, that provides CIFS/NFS/iSCSI protocol support. As a gateway it cache's data that eventually lives on more than a dozen cloud storage providers, including EMC's ATMOS and I assume ECS.
VCE is not an SMB play, it's entry point is way too high, and "Marvin," will not be a competitor at all.
If anything this puts many of the SMB/mid-sized storage arrays at risk. Who needs a Nimble or Lefthand or converged Nutanix when you can get something like marvin?
Commvault is software, and not an appliance. StorageTek isn't really a backup appliance, but more so a NAS. Though Oracle will sometimes say otherwise...
That said, DataDomain has the biggest market share and the most flexible options. It's the oldest product too. It's got a lot of features, and a lot of features that can work concurrently, not to mention more compatibility/integration with 3rd parties than anyone. If only it didn't cost so much...
Commvault partners with any storage vendor, they don't have an allegiance. I've run into them with CoRAID, NetApp, HDS, even Isilon from EMC. They only claim to need "disk," and will do anything to push their software stack. I do not doubt it's a good product, it's just that their pre-sales teams are very coy and misleading about their true hardware requirements for production workloads.
Someone like NetApp buying Commvault would be a huge win I think for both companies. And HDS is a good bet too, though I think NetApp would make it's attempt first and be aggressive in its offer for it, if only CV wouldn't ask for a 50% premium of their worth.
The only way IMO for CV to really start dominating is to offer a true integrated hardware bundle. Built to spec, supported by a single vendor. Once that happens, Symantec and EMC, watch out.
Oh yay, let's compare last years gear via a whitepaper and no hands on experience, to what I assume is current rev Nutanix hardware?
Why no comparison to VNX2, or even dare I say it ScaleIO? (I know, I know it's not part of VCE, but it's the closer storage platform to yours) Since it's VDI, you know EMC leads with XtremeIO right?
While you're at it, use actual hardware in a repeatable benchmark and not a whitepaper.
Lastly... is the cost of the hypervisor and support included into your TCO?
At the end of the day, find it impressive how startups are in terms of professionalism. I have two colleagues that work at Nutanix as SE's that are good people, that wouldn't stoop to this marketing rubbish.
Odds are they are using deduplication to achieve this, maybe even borrowing from NBU with their Accelerator technology. So the speed improvements of 100% are not unreasonable, but at the same time, this is in certain datasets with low change rates of a certain data type.. So really, it applies to no one but their own labs.
So many people have suffered with BE 12, 12.5, 2010, R1, R2, R3, 2012, etc... That not many people left have that much faith in Symantec, let alone BackupExec anymore.
It's always been an SMB product, and has always been artificially crippled so as to not step on the toes of NetBackup. Only time will tell. Odds are, based on past performance of their products, you wont get anything stable and working till at least R2 of the release. So let's see an update to this article in 2016...
Though, the traditional arrays that add flash, or are all flash, are at a huge disadvantage against native AFA's. Usually lacking in say for example inline dedupe and compression, that most AFA's already have natively.
Most of the traditional arrays that can be sold as an AFA config, are for certain use cases, that often are not the same as a native AFA.
That said, I think if it were to include them, they would be ranked way low, or bring down the overall ranking.
NetApp's idea of a "None of these have a full unified architecture according to NetApp." Is a joke. Nothing more than marketing spin.
Yes OnTap is a unified OS. However, if another unified device provides file and block, even if there are two OS's, but use a central management console, who cares? Does it meet the business requirements? Is it reliable?
Wishful thinking on your part. Did you get hurt by a bad sales rep? Thats about the majority of the reason folks hate EMC.
When they lead the world in overall global storage shipments, not to mention some other lines of business like backup appliances, etc... It'll be hard to rock that boat for the foreseeable future.
For an SMB that is near 100% virtualized, Veeam is cheap. I have no qualms moving away from the traditional apps to something like Veeam or vRanger, etc... I've recommended it for years now.
Many folks that have segregated IT groups, where the VM Admin wants Veeam for his stuff, and forces the Backup Admin to just sweep up his files using their normal backup app to presumably move to tape as needed.
Are they landing any large $100k+ deals? What's their average deal size?
What does this statement mean? "continue to lack high-end features for Oracle and VMware environments that are only available on Simpana."
Which features? From a VMWare standpoint, I'm a bit shocked seeing as how EMC owns a significant stake in VMware, VDP is Avamar, and EMC sales tout the vmware features of avamar 7 and Legato/Networker 8.1
As for Oracle, integrate with RMAN, do backup, get dedupe. What else is needed?
LOL. Avamar was doing this circa 2001 or so, you are very incorrect. This is way before Commvault was even a name in the enterprise. Avamar to this day still has the best client-side dedupe performance in the market I've seen against various platforms. It's just cost prohibitive.
An appliance is purpose built for a limited task at hand. Purpose built, and purpose tuned. That cannot be said for Commvault, backupexec, TSM, etc. When PureDisk was around is was a cluster *** to get support, due to all the finger pointing on your own hardware, HBA's, multi-pathing software, etc. Commvault is no different.
I can't see this feature being rolled out that widespread, without a lot of x86 servers and fast storage to make it happen.
Commvault already needs pretty beefy servers as is (They are not an appliance vendor like EMC) so all processing is done in the MediaAgent typically. e.g. PCI Flash, 15k disk, 32+GB of RAM, etc.
Now you want to take a backup, and then perform an automated P2V, and DASHCopy it? How much more compute is needed to do that in a reasonable amount of time, let alone how many concurrent ones can you do?
Since you're creating an entirely new dataset/stream, how efficient can DASHCopy even be? I fear the bandwidth needed in the manual will say "Dark Fiber required to remote site."
On paper this sounds great. Architecturally (Let alone in a tight RTO), sounds like a nightmare.
There was a push back in the day for centralized management, and centralized this and that. However, we've gotten more and more complicated if anything with point products.
Take EMC for example. RecoverPoint, Avamar, Networker, DataDomain, DPA, All great products in their own regard. Together, a nightmare to manage by a single per or two. There are dashboards to link some of these products together, but they are dashboards, not management tools.
Symantec is another. Endpoint protection, endpoint encryption, manage it with Altiris (Or whatever they are calling it these days). Then there is DLP and a few other Security products they offer. BackupExec, NetBackup, EnterpriseVault, Storage Foundation. No common UI to offer concurrency between products...
CA, IBM, etc... The list goes on and on.
The flipside is that you buy into a Nimble, Compellent or NetApp array that claims to do it all. Then realize you bought a jack of all trades, master of none.
Pretty much this.
Avamar had an issue like this, but more so related to it's Linux OS. Pretty much had to do a reboot each year, until the appropriate patches were installed. A few other EMC products, also running under linux had this issue.
Luckily for EMC, they are aware of which systems and customer are affected, and were proactive about the fix.
This one though, a bit more extreme at only 80 days. Seems like QA as of late is taking a dump here. This with the avamar/datadomain issues, what a pain in the arse.
I didn't see a mention of vSpex or FlexPod? Both allow a customer to use commodity servers, infrastructure, and templates for storage; and build out a reference architecture without the VCE like premium you say costs a few virgins...
It'll still use the big iron of a VNX or FAS filer, but you have a reference template to build off of that is known to work and can save you a bit of money if you don't need converged support.
How is EMC in there as "In use?" It's not even available for sale yet. Unless we're talking an all flash VNX, or flash in the VNX/VMAX?
I think from this reading, it's basically a 3-way tie for the most part, Violin, Pure, and the potential for EMC to make a move.
I know of some EMC demo boxes out in the wild, and I'll leave it at that. I know of a LOT of EMC folks moving over to Pure from the sales and SE side of things.
All EMC needs to do is actually hurry up with a product. Pure is getting the sales team together, from EMC, and needs to get some big wins, and marquee customers. As for Violin, I have yet to see them in my patch of the woods.
Interesting how you would compare a VNX to XtremeIO, when they have nothing in common... Nothing.
I don't see how in the world NetApp thinks ONTAP can do what they want under a single OS. The thought of all these new features being bolted on, patched in, etc; onto an existing platform is a recipe for disaster IMO. It won't perform, won't scale, wont be easy to manage.
There is a reason Isilon is so good at what they do. There is also a reason VMAX/Symmetrix, HDS VSP, HP 3Par, etc are so good at what they do; with purpose built technologies. The thought that a single set of controllers will do all of tasks mentioned under ONTAP, as a single point of failure (like how they try to sell me on using snapshots for backups) It just scares me, and should anyone listening to their fodder.
EMC has a dropbox competitor, it's called Syncplicity. It works with isilon or atmos and soon im told vnx
For Dell to survive, they have to go private. It'll allow them to burn through a lot of middle management, shake up the company in terms of products and focus, and generally not be a loss leader anymore.
If sold to Icahn, there will be a payout to investors like himself, higher than what would be received by going private. The company would be put into more debt, and the company continue their downward spiral and will fail. Pieces of the business sold off and massive layoffs. More so then simply a management shake-up from going private.
So on one hand both scenarios get a payout to investors. However the greedy folks always want more. But only one of them will not involve taking on more debt to pay shareholders.
Symantec has been selling Storage Foundation for a decade if not more. They have had a very TIGHT compatibility list of what hardware to use from storage to HBA's to servers. They say "buy commodity hardware, use our software." Well it sucks and can be plagued with a lot of fingerpointing from various vendors. e.g. too slow of disk, wrong HBA driver/firmware, Multipathing issues, etc. This mantra has been used in PureDIsk, NetBackup, etc too. There are other vendors like FreeNas and the like that offer this as well.
What is predicted in this article is years and years off. It's been done for years, but getting it right has never been possible. This is why the HDS, EMC's, and Netapps of the world continue to operate and work. Because their wares have proven themselves. Sure a startup will spin a compelling story, but for what? Some budget conscious admin that likes to be on the bleeding edge? Yeah good luck with that.
How does a benchmark on a system 2+yrs ago, a few models older, a few generations of OneFS older; to a system with an unreleased OS, on a apples to Oranges disk subsystem?
And how relevant or realistic is this benchmark at all? It's bragging rights, but no one builds a system to match this benchmark workload.
I much prefer $.00 per IOP. And not node count or disk config or max IOP's in a synthetic benchmark.