Chris, the DX products are completely new products, not re-badged SX (which was based on Dot Hill as I'm sure you knew).
18 posts • joined 11 Sep 2008
David, take your point, however thats not really the point!
Fujitsu, HP, and IBM for some time have realised that cores/performance is only part of the answer, the real question is how do you harness it, manage it effectively, keep it secure, power it and finally keep it cool.
It was not so long ago that Sun claimed the biggest/highest performance Unix box on the market which began to fail all over the place (www.forbes.com, search for sun screen, I believe the article is still there). Ok so they they bought that box from Cray but did they design the x86 architecture from the ground up or did they do this through aquisition?
I do have to agree with your last comment however, its about time the world woke up to the fact that there is more than one capable x86 vendor out there!
Keep the software business, monetise MySQL effectively etc etc etc (Please see all previous articles and comments on IBM/Sun Hp+Oracle/Sun, Oracle/Sun)
Merge the Storage business and all its IP with Pillar (I hear Larry ordering a new yacht as we speak)
Sell the SPARC business to Fujitsu but keep the revenues from Solaris licensing.
P.S. can we have a Larry icon now?
".......If we include the mid-range then the most you can say is SUN neither focused or de-focused. The market share has been stable. (Globally FY05=16.8%, FY08=20.1%) SUN's main focus from FY06 to today ........."
The FY08 figure would not have been where it is were it not for Fujitsu.......
I think the writer has a point (several times) in that they have not gone under yet but are definitely uncovering the life-boats!
However the question remains, what would IBM actually be buying?
They need another (well actually 4 or more) chip-set and OS like a hole in the head (I cleanded that one up BTW)
Customers on and comitted to Solaris (and there are a lot of them) will just accelerate plans to move to Linux, which by the way Sun have been pushing as hard as anyone!
They really are coming to get you!
No doubt with a cleverly disguised managed sevices contract, errr no sorry , bloated EDS contract that cleverly commits you use all of the HP kit like 'Superdumb', 'cClass' (c in this respect standing for bottom of the) and Virtually useless connect.
Mines the one with 'I've seen the light on the back'
"Egenera definately can't claim, as PAN is for their frames only" errrrrr........ wrong!
FSC have ported PAN to their Blades, Dell have announced the same intention albeit on the rack servers.
There are a number of instances of high-performance/throughput apps running on PAN, as for 2 FC cables per rack I think you'll find you can get more in a Frame now
Comparing Hp/IBM/Verari with Egenera BladeFrame is a bit like comparing the management system on a bicycle, with the management systems on an F1 car...... (to keep David W.s errr rrr.....analogy going).
BladeFrame is not about density/packaging/cooling, although it has some benefis in this area, as HP keep telling us, Its about management and deployment, which PAN is all about!
BladeFrame does not compete (and nor should it) in the blade space. Its real benefit is in removing complex software stacks to manage service quality and service levels, both in the Win/Lintel world as well as he expensive proprietory UNIX worlds. Takre a look at how many software stacks you need to manage a cClass effectively (its on the HP website under data centre automation) all that software, all that complexity, so little time.....................
BladeFrame replaces all of this with one box, one stack, one interface, and BTW it manages physical and virtual in the same way.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.. sounds like a Mainframe to me, heard that somewhere before............?
I agree with Matt and robin. We do see higher consolidation ratios, but it depends on the requirement. 30+ instances may be ideal for Dev/Tes/UAT environaments, but for production?? - at the end of the day it depends on the app. One customer of ours reported that in the D/T/UAT area they saw significant savings due to the higer ratios available, when they looked at this in production, the returns dropped to single digit percentages due to a) lower consolidation ratios and b) all the other 'stuff' needed to run the virtual estate. Plus the fact with analysts quoting the 'no more than 40% of apps can be virtualised' rule, physical is still needed. The real complexity comes when you have to manage physiscal and virtual, which is what all customers have to do.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019