2 posts • joined Wednesday 10th July 2013 19:11 GMT
FlexPod beating VCE needs clarification
Real easy to understand. This data is from the mid market space and VCE plays well in both mid-market and in higher end commercial and enterprise environments. So these numbers are for the smaller companies and does not factor in the VCE dominance in the more demanding and application intensive companies. What's not being said is that EMC VSPEX actually beat FlexPod in this same space. So the data on this is a bit off actually. FlexPod is only reference architecture like VSPEX, VCE is not reference architecture at all. It should be considered as hyper-converged infrastructure, they do firmware upgrades automatically every 6 months, and its all tested etc.. FlexPod is really just UCS and storage where the storage admin still needs to know how to manage it all. VCE is one GUI where you now don't have to a storage admin at the wheel but a VMW admin instead. Thus proiding a hyper converged resource for the company.
Love to know what role these EMC insiders are playing, obviously they know surface data about the technology and probably have never positioned or sold any of it.
I have to applaud EMC once again with putting together< such a line up. What has always puzzled me about folks making comments about EMC being confusing or complex is that those folks have never actually run an I.T. shop and have surface knowledge of the technology and don't actually think as a consultant or as providing the "proper" service levels to their end users.
25 years ago in I.T., distributed computing was running rampant, NT boxes were replacing large mainframes for remote office and certain users, why? Users needed faster response to technology and MIS Departments could not respond quickly or efficiently enough. We all saw what happened to a decentralized compute model, it's now all back to centralization, however at this point we are operating in a decentralized business leader model where the business units are making more of the decisions and taking that away from I.T. due to their lack of fully understanding the end user experience and needs.
EMC has always put the delivery, protection and ease of user first, they provide the best in class as a company to manage, move, protect, recover, archive, tier, and now provide a global mobile user secure access anywhere, anytime. It's all about how to understand the user and how the user needs to work.
Centera was build as a full all purpose archive device and does very well with that. Some people still want that type of function, so use it. ATMOS was developed to help large file archive and image data to be more scalable, become an efficient user of cloud based data retention and to be able to be mobile, if that is your use case use it, Isilon is scale out, big scale out NAS and great for files and objects, not replacing Centera or ATMOS at all but complimenting all the really smart people that do work in I.T. that understand the need for diversity and for the need to use a device(s) that are "properly" aligned with their use case. Who else can truly consult with you, understand your use case and address both end user as well as I.T. than EMC?
I believe EMC should be thank as saving the face of big data rather than forcing this data into the wrong media thus the media< controls the process and end users will be effected pushing us back 25 years to mainframes trying to satisfy a diverse user community with diverse needs.
EMC continues to go against the grain because they are the actual tree that the wood is cut from, they have the confidence to be ridiculed knowing they are doing what's best for the customers out there that need transition time, they need a vision and they need someone that will be patient with them and not abandon them because others are going in a different direction. Same story with iSCSI.
If anyone knew that EMC was one of the original patent holders of iSCSI, yet they were the last to release storage capabilities for iSCSI due to it's inherent latency issues and overall performance challenges, and EMC could have been first to market but instead thought only of the customer first, their data and that iSCSI was not fitting into the standards of EMC's customers and EMC did not want to just go along with the trend and be like others, they took the heat early on for not adopting iSCSI and by the time they did, they had years of testing, the IP market had changed and iSCSI became a viable option for optimal performance.
ViPR is a completely different conversation and should not effect the outcome of Isilon, Centera, ATMOS or others ViPR is pure genius and belongs exactly where it is today. EMC is ahead of the industry and this frustrates folks that can only think of ways to see EMC's offerings as confusing because these same folks grew up as SAN Slickers, people that just through disk around and talk speeds and feeds and RAID groups.
We are well beyond that and EMC's will stand behind their customers evolving users, data, and infrastructure needs. What other hardware vendor would carry all of these product proudly? Once again Tucci, Scannell and company, love the confidence and I can't wait to run into another competitor that tries to have these conversations, game over.
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Storagebod Oh no, RBS has gone titsup again... but is it JUST BAD LUCK?