This past week I spent a few days in San Francisco attending the VMworld 2010 event which included a Wednesday evening concert with the Australian band INXS.

Despite some long lines (or queues) waiting to get into sessions, keynotes or lunch resulting in delays reminiscent of trying to put too many virtual machines (VMs) onto a given number of physical machines (PMs) in the quest to drive up utilization, the overall event was fantastic.

While at the event, I had a chance to meet up with fellow vExpert Eric Siebert whose new book Maximum vSphere made its debut. I was honored when asked by Eric to help out with his chapter on storage, learn more about Erics new book here.

Eric was just one of many people I was able to catch up with or in some cases meet for the first time face to face. Among the many fellow twitter tweeps included @3parfarley @aebarrett @charleshood @cxi @edsai @ericsiebert @hpstorageguy @iben @jmichelmetz @jtroyer @keithnorbie @KendrickColeman @MesabiGroup @PariseauTT @RayLucchesi @RickVanover @rodos @rogerlund @rootwyrm @sakacc @scott_lowe @ServerVirt_TT @SiliconValleyPR @ssauer @ssharwood @StorageOlogist @stu @Texiwill and @vmworld not to mention many others who are not on twitter.

Big thanks to @rogerlund for organizing a very impromptu ad hoc lunch discussion with a couple of other IT pros representing vary different as well as diverse spectrums of public, private, small, large and ultra large environments. I was only at the event for two days and thus there were many others that I was looking for at their booths or in the hallways (I saw @ekhnaser among others that I could not call out too in time) or in the meeting rooms as well as in the lunch hall.  I look forward to seeing you all at some future event or venue.

On the food scene, while I did not have a chance to dine at one of my local favorites Brandy Hos, I did have a fantastic lunch at Henrys House of Pain (aka Henrys House of Hunan on Sansome). I also had a great outdoor dinner in the alleyway based Cafe Tiramisu where I enjoyed their signature dish. The dish which was essentially a fruit de mer (Fruit of the Sea) over linguine covered with a thin pizza crust that was baked. It was fantastic and brings a whole new dimension to the theme of a classic pot pie meets fruit de mar, give it a try!

On an even lighter or fun note, following are photos and links to some videos of the INXS event courtesy of Karen (aka Mrs Schulz). In addition to being an award winning photographer, Karens day time job is that of an applications development analyst (e.g. an IT Geekette) at a large Minnesota based Mining and Manufacturing company that is also involved in many different sticky and abrasive among other products.

Karen (Photo Courtesy Karen Sculz)

Karen took the following photos (and videos) with her Cannon Powershot S5 Digital camera.

Me heading to INXS show at VMworld 2010 (Photo Courtesy Karen Schulz)

Me sitting in the middle of the virtual highway (Photo Courtesy Karen Schulz)

INXS at VMworld 2010 (Photo Courtesy Karen Schulz)

JD Fortune of INXS at VMworld (Photo Courtesy Karen Schulz)

Kirk Pengilly and JD Fortune of INXS at VMworld 2010 (Photo Courtesy Karen Schulz)

Tim Farriss of INXS (Photo Courtesy Karen Schulz)

Here are links to some videos that Karen captured from up front near the stage during the INXS show at VMworld 2010.

Devil Inside (not to be confused with the devil is in the details of clouds, virtualization and other IT topics)

By My Side (Where a vendor or solution partner should be during and after the sale for their customers)

Disappear (What should not happen to your data or virtual machines in physical, virtual or cloud environments)

Never Tear Us Apart (What should not happen between your servers, storage, applications and data)

Need You Tonight (The call that many system admins get during their off hours)

New Sensation (What many are experience with virtualization and clouds)

Dont Change (Ironic final song of encore of a concert at conference with a theme of change)

A big tip of the hat along with thanks goes out to John Troyer of VMware as well as Sarah Shvil of the VMware Analyst Relations team for helping make it possible for me to attend as an independent IT industry analyst instead of on the coat tails of a vendors exhibit hall pass (disclosure: I paid for my own travel, lodging and dinning expenses).

Me hitching a ride on the virtual highway to the clouds and VMworld (Photo Curtsey Karen Schulz)

Hopefully with some luck, I will be able to hitch a ride and attend VMworld again next year in Las Vegas, perhaps even as a repeat vExpert as well as IT Industry Analyst.

Thats a wrap for now.

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio

Follow via Goggle Feedburner here or via email subscription here.

You can also subscribe to the news letter by simply sending an email to newsletter@storageio.com

Enjoy this edition of the StorageIO newsletter, let me know your comments and feedback.

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio

Last week Dell announced (read previous and related posts here) that they were buying 3PAR for $1.15B USD, then HP offered a counter bid, this morning Dell countered with a $1.6B USD bid only to be followed by HPs counter counter counter bid of $1.8B which almost seems like an Ebay autobid raising the question of what is the buy it now price.

Meanwhile, I was asked today to be the guest co host of the Storage Monkeys Infosmack Podcast with regular host Greg Knieriemen filling in for the regular co host Marc Farley who happens to be a 3PAR employee while we interviewed special guest CEO David Scott.

Click here to listen to this exclusive interview with 3PAR CEO David Scott during the midst of the bidding between HP and Dell for some insight into 3PAR, their technology as well as get an inside insight discussion with the man who is the current Belle of the Ball in this current IT industry merger and acquisition bidding battle along with related industry trends and perspective insight commentary.

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio

My favorite late summer reading is not the eDiscovery Entertainment this week, or Mens Metadata Monthly and it is not the Cisco Chronicles let alone the HP national inquirer Pages.

No my favorite late summer reading is not Business Barons, NFL weekly wrap up nor Virtualization Hyperventilation Health tips. Neither is it the editorials, advertisements or cheerleading sections in the Cloud Crowd Confusion Chronicles, nor is it million miler monthly and it is not Green IT Eggs and Spam. While all good reads, it is not Wine Snob Weekly, or the Great Grape Gazette or Beer Brewers News, Minnesota DNR news, Virtual Motor head Monthly, or Freshwater Dock Yachting Yearly review, Aviation Leak and Space Technology nor Rolling Stone.

It is also not one of the local news papers or national ones for that matter although the Singapore Shipping Times is a good diversion read that reminds me of my past visits there.

While I would like to say it is one of the many popular blogs (industry or other), let alone one of the many great books out there in print or kindle, no, it is something completely different.

Granted all of the above or their virtual reality physical variant are in fact great reading material that I enjoy and do recommend (or their reasonable facsimile).

However, there is one that stands out above all others and it is called Cooks Illustrated (FTC disclosure, my wife gave me a subscription).

Is there a point to all of the above which if you could not tell, includes some tongue in cheek humor, perhaps what some might see as, skepticism or snarkyness while others might have a good laugh (to each your own)?

Yes the point is this.

Take a break from your normal wide world of work routine, stop typing or talking for a bit, sit back, maybe put some tunes on and read something to stimulate (as well as relax) the brain for a bit.

Find and enjoy some recreational or diversion reading material no matter how light or heavy, humor or serious, perhaps listen to some music and enjoy a cold (or warm) beverage perhaps even drifting into a drool producing nap. Enjoy the balance of your summer (or winter for friends down under) and take some time to read something to stimulate that gray matter between the ears located slightly behind your eyes.

Ok, now Im hungry have to go.

BTW: What is your favorite late summer reading material (and/or relaxation activity, music, food or beverage)?

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio

Earlier this week Dell announced that they were buying 3APR for $1.15B USD

As a follow up to this, this and this recent posts, I keep getting asked in different forums, venues, via email, telephone calls and in person who will or should Dell buy next, and will Dell buy Brocade, who will buy Brocade or anyone else for that matter.

Ok, first let me say that everything in this post is just a perspective based on openly (e.g. publicly) available information along with some common sense. Thus there is no NDA or confidential insight or tips from some anonymous source named blue horseshoe (remember the movie wall street?).

However I did used to work for a SAN, MAN and WAN company called INRANGE that was a supplier to server and storage vendors as well as partnered with Emulex, Qlogic as well as Adva among others. INRANGE which became OUT of RANGE (that is some SAN humor btw) when it was sold to CNT was then bought by EMC spin off McData (I left before then) which in turn was bought by Brocade. Now does any of that make more qualified than any other arm chair quarterback pundit with a keyboard and pulse to jump into the whom Dell will buy next sweepstakes to I say no.

However, let me use some experience to analyze a few things, then connect some dots. From there, I will leave it up to you to agree, disagree, bet, guess, speculate or wish upon a falling star as to whom Dell might buy, or for that matter, what others may or may not do.

First, since Brocade keeps coming up in conversations, here is a previous post I did on the topic of them being for sale or who might buy them.

I still think that Brocade can survive on their own, granted they need to kick it into gear on the switch (Ethernet, Fibre Channel and FCoE), distance extension, HBA or CNA if you prefer as well as management tools front. Brocade built their business with OEM partnerships via Dell, EMC, HP, HDS, IBM, NetApp and Oracle/Sun among many others not to mention their channel distribution programs.

Thus Brocade needs to leverage those OEMs on a go forward basis. However, that model and channel partner model also gets in the way of Brocade being bought by one of their OEMs. Keep in mind that EMC once owned McData and made a nice profit on that spin off (or spin out) while IBM sold off their networking division to Cisco, now both do good business with their OEM suppliers. Likewise, both leverage multiple suppliers as that is what their partners and customers want (e.g. choice of suppliers).

Now, keep in mind that HP has had their procurve low end Ethernet switches for some time and historically flipped some business (excuse me, partnered) to Cisco for high end Ethernet LAN networking technology. Lets also not forget about HPs recent acquisition of 3COM (read about it here).

Now with Cisco tip toeing into the server market trying to flex its muscles in the small server pool (no offense Cisco or to your faithful followers) HP and other server vendors might be wanting to flip something else at Cisco besides business. Oh oh, I think I hear the Cisco UCS truth squads knocking at the door with large amounts of truth serum (Ok, Im just kidding folks).

Lets get back to HP and 3COM.

IMHO that was partly an opportunity to pick up some additional revenue, partly to grab a brand name that also has ties into the Chinese market. Keep Huawei (here and here) in mind, you know, that sometimes Cisco nemeses networking company who had 2009 revenues of RMB149.1B or $21.8B USD. Now back to H and 3COM, that was also IMHO play to gain access to additional SMB, SOHO, ROBO and consumer market channels for a bargain price. HP is not alone as others have done similar acquisitions in part or in whole to pick up a brand name that also hade partners, channels, products and revenues. For example among many others, EMC and Iomega, Seagate and Maxtor, Symantec and Norton, CA buying, well, I think or hope you get the picture.

Now back to Brocade and Dell.

Why would Dell need Brocade for which they would have to a pay a premium price of $6-7B USD (assume 3 to 3.5x multiplier on revenue) which would get them just under $900M in debt and a couple of billion in annual revenue. Keep in mind that Dell has somewhere in the neighborhood of $9-10B in cash although while Im not an accountant, the financial people tell me they need to maintain their strategic reserves of which such a deal would put a big dent into.

However, there is more to the story which is that revenue would be in jeopardy if the other server and or storage vendors (e.g. EMC, Fujitsu, HP, HDS, IBM, NEC, NetApp, and Oracle/Sun etc) did not like Dell owning one of their suppliers. In other words, unless Cisco really upsets the server vendors which they have been doing to a lesser degree already, why would Dell want to risk a Texas size pile of cash to get a revenue stream that could blow away in a Texas size hurricane or dust storm?

Granted if Dell could talk Michael Klayko (Brocades CEO) and board as well as other investors into a low ball offer the math might virtually work. However that is also doubtful knowing that Klayko also knows Joe Tucci of EMC who knows how to drive a deal or bargain. Thus, I do not see Brocade rolling over in desperation to sell them at a discount as much as some might want you to believe that they need to do.

Thus, while anything is possible, I do not see Dell buying Brocade except for one possible scenario which could result in a bidding war not to mention utter industry chaos.

That scenario is what I refer to as MAD which is a Mutual Assured Destruction situation. In other words, an all out war or ensuing instability that throws existing OEMs, partners and business into chaos (keep in mind however in chaos or confusion there is opportunity). The MAD scenario could be triggered by Cisco finally getting truly and really serious about servers. Granted Cisco is doing their best to test their partners, OEMs and even customers as too how much they will tolerate in terms of entering the server market.

Im not convinced they are ready to be number one, two or three let alone four or five. After all, my numbers may be off, however best I can tell the number of Cisco blade servers is measured in thousands or best case a few ten thousand since its launch. By comparison, how many thousands of servers do Cisco OEMs Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle among others ship per week or month? In other words, Cisco to really get serious would need to ramp up that server business by several factors of ten, a move that would not sit well (even worse than now) with their major OEM partners.

Thus, if Cisco were to get serious and want to move up into the top two or three spot of the server market, something people always tell me that Cisco feels they have to be in a top market spot, they step all over their OEMs. This in turn would set off the MAD scenario mentioned above, kind of like a scene out of war games, perhaps what you are seeing with some of the early Cisco posturing. Sure Cisco made some moves with their UCS and their EMC alliances as well as dancing with whoever buys them a drink and sure HP bought 3COM which I guess could be seen as a warning shot if you like. Sure Cisco is the 800 lb guerrilla when compared to the networking vendors except do not forget about Huawei (read more here).

Thus for the time being, I expect Cisco to keep making noise, testing the waters, pushing its OEMs and partners. Perhaps Cisco also does some arms treaties in the form of marketing alliances as it continues to push its FCoE and unified compute initiatives. Sure they will keep pushing Virtual Desktop Initiatives (VDI) and anything else that can generate network traffic so they can support those needs. However, also keep in mind that VMwares biggest platform deployment (e.g. servers) customers or partners are HP and Dell in no particular order (I will let you rank them depending on whose data you choose).

Oh no, I have to stop now as I wanted this to be a short post.

So what does this have to do with Dell and Brocade?

Simple, why would Dell want to go down that path if they do not have to?

As to who Dell should buy, real quickly, how about a data protection (security, backup, restore, BC, DR) company or a data management or a desktop management company, how about one that fits all of those like Symantec which from a revenue standpoint is about three times that of Brocade.

Heck, if you think Dell could afford Brocade, then why not a Symantec which might actually be worth more in pieces than as a whole. Dell could sell off what they do not need or want or make that part of a deal or keep it all! As for others, how Dell buying a low end consumer, prosumer, SOHO storage play like Drobo or Snap among others.

Ok, I have to wrap up for now.

Talk to you all soon either here, or in one of the many other different venues or social media as well as traditional mediums as this story is far from being done.

Whats is your take?

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio

Here are some links to read more about the above topics and themes

• Could Huawei buy Brocade?
• Acadia VCE: VMware + Cisco + EMC = Virtual Computing Environment
• Did HP respond to EMC and Cisco VCE with Microsoft HyperV bundle?
• HP Buys one of the seven networking dwarfs and gets a bargain
• Industry Trends and Perspectives: Converged Networking and IO Virtualization (IOV)
• I/O, I/O, Its off to Virtual Work and VMworld I Go (or went)
• Back to school shopping: Dude, Dell Digests 3PAR Disk storage
• Data footprint reduction (Part 1): Life beyond dedupe and changing data lifecycles
• Data footprint reduction (Part 2): Dell, IBM, Ocarina and Storwize

No sooner has the dust settled from Dells other recent acquisitions, its back to school shopping time and the latest bargain for the Round Rock Texas folks is bay (San Francisco) area storage vendor 3PAR for $1.15B. As a refresh, some of Dells more recent acquisitions including a few years ago $1.4B for EqualLogic, $3.9B for Perot systems not to mention Exanet, Kace and Ocarina earlier this year. For those interested, as of April 2010 reporting figures found here, Dell showed about $10B USD in cash and here is financial information on publicly held 3PAR (PAR).

Who is 3PAR
3PAR is a publicly traded company (PAR) that makes a scalable or clustered storage system with many built in advanced features typically associated with high end EMC DMX and VMAX as well as CLARiiON, in addition to Hitachi or HP or IBM enterprise class solutions. The Inserv (3PARs storage solution) combines hardware and software providing a very scalable solution that can be configured for smaller environments or larger enterprise by varying the number of controllers or processing nodes, connectivity (server attachment) ports, cache and disk drives.

Unlike EqualLogic which is more of a mid market iSCSI only storage system, the 3PAR Inserv is capable of going head to head with the EMC CLARiiON as well as DMC or VMAX systems that support a mix of iSCSI and Fibre Channel or NAS via gateway or appliances. Thus while there were occasional competitive situations between 3PAR and Dell EqualLogic, they for the most part were targeted at different market sectors or customers deployment scenarios.

What does Dell get with 3PAR?

• A good deal if not a bargain on one of the last new storage startup pure plays
• A public company that is actually generating revenue with a large and growing installed base
• A seasoned sales force who knows how to sell into the enterprise storage space against EMC, HP, IBM, Oracle/SUN, Netapp and others
• A solution that can scale in terms of functionality, connectivity, performance, availability, capacity and energy efficiency (PACE)
• Potential route to new markets where 3PAR has had success, or to bridge gaps where both have played and competed in the past
• Did I say a company with an established footprint of installed 3PAR Inserv storage systems and good list of marquee customers
• Ability to sell a solution that they own the intellectual property (IP) instead of that of partner EMC
• Plenty of IP that can be leveraged within other Dell solutions, not to mention combine 3PAR with other recently acquired technologies or companies.

On a lighter note, Dell picks up once again Marc Farley who was with them briefly after the EqualLogic acquisition who then departed to 3PAR where he became director of social media including launch of Infosmack on Storage Monkeys with co host Greg Knieriemen (@Knieriemen). Of course the twitter world and traditional coconut wires are now speculating where Farley will go next that Dell may end up buying in the future.

What does this mean for Dell and their data storage portfolio?
While in no ways all inclusive or comprehensive, table 1 provides a rough framework of different price bands, categories, tiers and market or application segments requiring various types of storage solutions where Dell can sell into.

Table 1: Sampling of various tiers, architectures, functionality and storage solution options

Clarifying some of the above categories in table 1:

Servers: Application servers or computers running Windows, Linux, HyperV, VMware or other applications, operating systems and hypervisors.

Services: Professional and consulting services, installation, break fix repair, call center, hosting, managed services or cloud solutions

Enterprise storage: Large scale (hundreds to thousands of drives, many front end as well as back ports, multiple controllers or storage processing engines (nodes), large amount of cache and equally strong performance, feature rich functionality, resilient and scalable.

Data footprint impact reduction: Archive, data management, compression, dedupe, thin provision among other techniques. Read more here and here.

Data preservation: Archiving for compliance and non regulatory applications or data including software, hardware, services.

General data protection: Excluding physical or logical data security (firewalls, dlp, etc), this would be backup/restore with encryption, replication, snapshots, hardware and software to support BC, DR and normal business operations. Read more about data protection options for virtual and physical storage here.

Scale out NAS: Clustered NAS, bulk unstructured storage, cloud storage system or file system. Read more about clustered storage here. HP has their eXtreme X series of scale out and bulk storage systems as well as gateways. These leverage IBRIX and Polyserve which were bought by HP as software, or as a solution (HP servers, storage and software), perhaps with optional data reduction software such as Ocarina OEMed by Dell. Dell now has Exanet which they bought recently as software, or as a solution running on Dell servers, with either SAS, iSCSI or FC back end storage plus optional data footprint reduction software such as Ocarina. IBM has GPFS as a software solution running on IBM or other vendors servers with attached storage, or as a solution such as SONAS with IBM servers running software with IBM DS mid range storage. IBM also OEMs Netapp as the N series.

General purpose NAS: NAS (NFS and CIFS or optional AFP and pNFS) for everyday enterprise (or SME/SMB) file serving and sharing

Mid market multi protocol block: For SMB to SME environments that need scalable shared (SAN) scalable block storage using iSCSI, FC or FCoE

Scalable SMB iSCSI: For SMB to SME environments that need scalable iSCSI storage with feature rich functionality including built in virtualization

Entry level shared block: Block storage with flexibility to support iSCSI, SAS or Fibre Channel with optional NAS support built in or available via a gateway. For example external SAS RAID shared storage between 2 or more servers configured in a HyeprV or VMware clustered that do not need or can afford higher cost of iSCSI. Another example would be shared SAS (or iSCSI or Fibre Channel) storage attached to a server running storage software such as clustered file system (e.g. Exanet) or VTL, Dedupe, Backup, Archiving or data footprint reduction tools or perhaps database software where higher cost or complexity of an iSCSI or Fibre Channel SAN is not needed. Read more about external shared SAS here.

Entry level unified multifunction: This is storage that can do block and file yet is scaled down to meet ease of acquisition, ease of sale, channel friendly, simplified deployment and installation yet affordable for SMBs or larger SOHOs as well as ROBOs.

Low end SOHO: Storage that can scale down to consumer, prosumer or lower end of SMB (e.g. SOHO) providing mix of block and file, yet priced and positioned below higher price multifunction systems.

Wait a minute, are that too many different categories or types of storage?

Perhaps, however it also enables multiple tools (tiers of technologies) to be in a vendors tool box, or, in an IT professionals tool bin to address different challenges. Lets come back to this in a few moments.

Some Industry trends and perspectives (ITP) thoughts:

How can Dell with 3PAR be an enterprise play without IBM mainframe FICON support?
Some would say forget about it, mainframes are dead thus not a Dell objective even though EMC, HDS and IBM sell a ton of storage into those environments. However, fair enough argument and one that 3PAR has faced for years while competing with EMC, HDS, HP, IBM and Fujitsu thus they are versed in how to handle that discussion. Thus the 3PAR teams can help the Dell folks determine where to hunt and farm for business something that many of the Dell folks already know how to do. After all, today they have to flip the business to EMC or worse.

If truly pressured and in need, Dell could continue reference sales with EMC for DMX and VMAX. Likewise they could also go to Bustech and/or Luminex who have open systems to mainframe gateways (including VTL support) under a custom or special solution sale. Ironically EMC has OEMed in the past Bustech to transform their high end storage into Mainframe VTLs (not to be confused with Falconstor or Quantum for open system) as well as Datadomain partnered with Luminex.

BTW, did you know that Dell has had for several years a group or team that handles specialized storage solutions addressing needs outside the usual product portfolio?

Thus IMHO Dells enterprise class focus will be that for open systems large scale out where they will compete with EMC DMX and VMAX, HDS USP or their soon to be announced enhancements, HP and their Hitachi Japan OEMed XP, IBM and the DS8000 as well as the seldom heard about yet equally scalable Fujitsu Eternus systems.

Why only 1.15B, after all they paid 1.4B for EqualLogic?
IMHO, had this deal occurred a couple of years ago when some valuations were still flying higher than today, and 3PAR were at their current sales run rate, customer deployment situations, it is possible the amount would have been higher, either way, this is still a great value for both Dell and 3PAR investors, customers, employees and partners.

Does this mean Dell dumps EMC?
Near term I do not think Dell dumps the EMC dudes (or dudettes) as there is still plenty of business in the mid market for the two companies. However, over time, I would expect that Dell will unleash the 3PAR folks into the space where normally a CLARiiON CX would have been positioned such as deals just above where EqualLogic plays, or where Fibre Channel is preferred. Likewise, I would expect Dell to empower the 3PAR team to go after additional higher end deals where a DMX or VMAX would have been the previous option not to mention where 3PAR has had success.

This would also mean extending into sales against HP EVA and XPs, IBM DS5000 and DS8000 as well as XIV, Oracle/Sun 6000 and 7000s to name a few. In other words there will be some spin around coopition, however longer term you can read the writing on the wall. Oh, btw, lest you forget, Dell is first and foremost a server company who now is getting into storage in a much bigger way and EMC is first and foremost a storage company who is getting into severs via VMware as well as their Cisco partnerships.

Are shots being fired across each other bows? I will leave that up to you to speculate.

Does this mean Dell MD1000/MD3000 iSCSI, SAS and FC disappears?
I do not think so as they have had a specific role for entry level below where the EqualLogic iSCSI only solution fits providing mixed iSCSI, SAS and Fibre Channel capabilities to compete with the HP MSA2000 (OEMed by Dothill) and IBM DS3000 (OEMed from LSI). While 3PAR could be taken down into some of these markets, which would also potentially dilute the brand and thus premium margin of those solutions.

Likewise, there is a play with server vendors to attach shared SAS external storage to small 2 and 4 node clusters for VMware, HyperV, Exchange, SQL, SharePoint and other applications where iSCSI or Fibre Channel are to expensive or not needed or where NAS is not a fit. Another play for the shared external SAS attached is for attaching low cost storage to scale out clustered NAS or bulk storage where software such as Exanet runs on a Dell server. Take a closer look at how HP is supporting their scale out as well as IBM and Oracle among others. Sure you can find iSCSI or Fibre Channel or even NAS back end to file servers. However growing trend of using shared SAS.

Does Dell now have too many different storage systems and solutions in their portfolio?
Possibly depending upon how you look at it and certainly the potential is there for revenue prevention teams to get in the way of each other instead of competing with external competitors. However if you compare the Dell lineup with those of EMC, HP, IBM and Oracle/Sun among others, it is not all that different. Note that HP, IBM and Oracle also have something in common with Dell in that they are general IT resource providers (servers, storage, networks, services, hardware and software) as compared to other traditional storage vendors.

Consequently if you look at these vendors in terms of their different markets from consumer to prosumer to SOHO at the low end of the SMB to SME that sits between SMB and enterprise, they have diverse customer needs. Likewise, if you look at these vendors server offerings, they too are diverse ranging from desktops to floor standing towers to racks, high density racks and blade servers that also need various tiers, architectures, price bands and purposed storage functionality.

What will be key for Dell to make this all work?
The key for Dell will be similar to that of their competitors which is to clearly communicate the value proposition of the various products or solutions, where, who and what their target markets are and then execute on those plans. There will be overlap and conflict despite the best spin as is always the case with diverse portfolios by vendors.

However if Dell can keep their teams focused on expanding their customer footprints at the expense of their external competition vs. cannibalizing their own internal product lines, not to mention creating or extending into new markets or applications. Consequently Dell now has many tools in their tool box and thus need to educate their solution teams on what to use or sell when, where, why and how instead of just having one tool or a singular focus. In other words, while a great solution, Dell no longer has to respond with the solution to everything is iSCSI based EqualLogic.

Likewise Dell can leverage the same emotion and momentum behind the EqualLogic teams to invigorate and unleash the best with 3PAR teams and solution into or onto the higher end of the SMB, SME and enterprise environments.

Im still thinking that Exanet is a diamond in the rough for Dell where they can install the clustered scalable NAS software onto their servers and use either lower end shared SAS RAID (e.g. MD3000), or iSCSI (MD3000, EqualLogic or 3PAR) or higher end Fibre Channel with 3PAR) for scale out, cloud and other bulk solutions competing with HP, Oracle and IBM. Dell still has the Windows based storage server for entry level multi protocol block and file capabilities as well as what they OEM from EMC.

Is Dell done shopping?
IMHO I do not think so as there are still areas where Dell can extend their portfolio and not just in storage. Likewise there are still some opportunities or perhaps bargains out there for fall and beyond acquisitions.

Does this mean that Dell is not happy with EqualLogic and iSCSI
Simply put from my perspective talking with Dell customers, prospects, and partners and seeing them all in action nothing could be further from Dell not being happy with iSCSI or EqualLogic. Look at this as being a way to extend the Dell story and capabilities into new markets, granted the EqualLogic folks now have a new sibling to compete with internal marketing and management for love and attention.

Isnt Dell just an iSCSI focused company?
A couple of years I was quoted in one of the financial analysis reports as saying that Dell needed to remain open to various forms of storage instead of becoming singularly focused on just iSCSI as a result of the EqualLogic deal. I standby that statement in that Dell to be a strong enterprise contender needs to have a balanced portfolio across different price or market bands, from block to file, from shared SAS to iSCSI to Fibre Channel and emerging FCoE.

This also means supporting traditional NAS across those different price band or market sectors as well as support for emerging and fast growing unstructured data markets where there is a need for scale out and bulk storage. Thus it is great to see Dell remaining open minded and not becoming singularly focused on just iSCSI instead providing the right solution to meet their diverse customer as well as prospect needs or opportunities.

While EqualLogic was and is a very successfully iSCSI focused storage solution not to mention one that Dell continues to leverage, Dell is more than just iSCSI. Take a look at Dells current storage line up as well as up in table 1 and there is a lot of existing diversity. Granted some of that current diversity is via partners which the 3PAR deal helps to address. What this means is that iSCSI continues to grow in popularity however there are other needs where shared SAS or Fibre Channel or FCoE will be needed opening new markets to Dell.

Bottom line and wrap up (for now)
This is a great move for Dell (as well as 3PAR) to move up market in the storage space with less reliance on EMC. Assuming that Dell can communicate the what to use when, where, why and how to both their internal teams, partners as well as industry and customers not to mention then execute on, they should have themselves a winner.

Will this deal end up being an even better bargain than when Dell paid $1.4B for EqualLogic?

Not sure yet, it certainly has potential if Dell can execute on their plans without losing momentum in any other their other areas (products).

Whats your take?

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio

Here are some related links to read more

• Data footprint reduction (Part 2): Dell, IBM, Ocarina and Storwize
• Data footprint reduction (Part 1): Life beyond dedupe and changing data lifecycles
• Industry Trends and Perspectives: Tiered Storage, Systems and Mediums
• Industry Trends and Perspectives: Storage Virtualization and Virtual Storage
• Clarifying Clustered Storage Confusion
• Industry Trends and Perspectives: 6GB SAS and DAS are not Dumb A$$ Storage
• Post Holiday IT Shopping Bargains, Dell Buying Exanet?
• Technology Tiering, Servers Storage and Snow Removal

HP is far from being alone in the corporate world involving investigations, lawsuits by governments or allegations of bribes and impropriety.

However what stands out is that of the CEO stepping down.

While not unique, after all remember the former CA CEO Sanjay Kumar who was locked up, or former Brocade CEO Greg Reyes now stepping into new government provided accommodations due to illegal activities, not to mention those from Enron among others. Granted in those situations there were legal ramifications outside of the companies prompting the courts to get involved, something that looks like for now is not the case at HP. However, having the courts get involved with corporate activity is almost becoming a pattern of how business is done. For example, there is a whos who list (e.g.Cisco, Dell, EMC, IBM, Intel, or Oracle among others) of IT companies involved in (or recently settled) various government or financial dealing cases associated with bribes, kickbacks or other business improprieties reminiscent of Rodney Dangerfield character Thornton Melon explaining how business is conducted in the real world during Dr Phillip Barbay business class in Back to School.

Lets get back to and focus on the individual, that is Mr Hurd and what I think is something rare these days. That is a CEO or leader of a company or organization seriously taking responsibility for their actions or those that they are responsible for instead of lip service and spin doctoring.

I do not know whether Mr Hurd decided on his own or it was suggested to him that he step down from his post. However what I do know simply based on the story that has been put out by HP is that Mr Hurd either has, or is being portrayed as taking the high road of stepping down. That is, as the head of the HP organization, he is taking responsibility for actions, not looking for special status or exceptions and stepping down from his post instead of trying to sweep the dust or dirt under the rug. Thus Kudos to Mr Hurd for taking responsibility, not hiding, spinning or throwing someone else under the proverbial corporate politics bus to save his own hide.As the CEO of a major corporation the buck stops with him and he should not be above the law or polices of his own organizations that other employees would be expected to follow.

Too often today we hear stories of company or organization or government leaders getting or expecting special treatment in some cases not taking full and complete responsibility for their actions other than for a photo opportunity.

On a different yet related note, perhaps my thinking will change as more comes out on the story as well as they story behind the story, however this is an interesting example of how crisis management can be dealt with. Sure the story was released on a Friday afternoon which is typically when bad news is put out after the financial markets have closed. On the other hand, given the nature of HP being a tech company and with web, blogs, twitter, face book and other social media the chatter was significant for a late Friday afternoon.

Lets see how this plays out and if HP along with their PR crisis team played the right cards by getting the story out, CEO Mark Hurd stepping down to avoid prolonging the situations as well as how wall street will react short term and over the long haul.

This leaves me with a closing thought of if politicians from all sides (or across both sides of aisle or parties) did what HP CEO Mark Hurd did (resign) due to impropriety, we would have fewer elected officials. Thus I do not think Mr Hurd has a future in government politics not because of what he did that caused his stepping down at HP.

No, rather because either on his own or under advice of others he decided not to look for or seek special favor or cover up of what was done as well as try not to spin the story thus saving both him and his company (HP) for the long term.

Nuff said for now.

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio

Over the past couple of weeks there has been a flurry of IT industry activity around data footprint impact reduction with Dell buying Ocarina and IBM acquiring Storwize. For those who want the quick (compacted, reduced) synopsis of what Dell buying Ocarina as well as IBM acquiring Storwize means read the first post in this two part series as well as some of my comments here and here.

This piece and it companion in part I of this two part series is about expanding the discussion to the much larger opportunity for vendors or vars of overall data footprint impact reduction beyond where they are currently focused. Likewise, this is about IT customers realizing that there are more opportunities to address data and storage optimization across your entire organization using various techniques instead of just focusing on backup or vmware virtual servers.

Who is Ocarina and Storwize?
Ocarina is a data and storage management software startup focused on data footprint reduction using a variety of approaches, techniques and algorithms. They differ from the traditional data dedupers (e.g. Asigra, Bakbone, Commvault, EMC Avamar, Datadomain and Networker, Exagrid, Falconstor, HP, IBM Protectier and TSM, Quantum, Sepaton and Symantec among others) by looking at data footprint reduction beyond just backup.

This means looking at how to reduce data footprint across different types of data including videos, image as well as text based documents among others. As a result, the market sweet spot for Ocarina is for general data footprint reduction including static along with active data including entertainment, video surveillance or gaming, reference data, web 2.0 and other bulk storage application data needs (this should compliment Dells recent Exanet acquisition).

What this means is that Ocarina is very well suited to address the rapidly growing amount of unstructured data that may not otherwise be handled as efficiently with by dedupe alone.

Storwize is a data and storage management startup focused on data footprint reduction using inline compression with an emphasis on maintaining performance for reads as well as writes of unstructured as well as structured database data. Consequently the market sweet spot for Storwize is around boosting the capacity of existing NAS storage systems from different vendors without negatively impacting performance. The trade off of the Storwize approach is that you do not get the spectacular data reduction ratios associated with backup centric or focused dedupe, however, you maintain performance associated with online storage that some dedupers dream of.

Both Dell and IBM have existing dedupe solutions for general purpose as well as backup along with other data footprint impact reduction tools (either owned or via partners). Now they are both expanding their focus and reach similar to what others such as EMC, HP, NetApp, Oracle and Symantec among others are doing. What this means is that someone at Dell and IBM see that there is much more to data footprint impact reduction than just a focus on dedupe for backup.

Wait, what does all of this discussion (or read here for background issues, challenges and opportunities) about unstructured data and changing access lifecycles have to do with dedupe, Ocarina and Storwize?

Continue reading on as this is about the expanding opportunity for data footprint reduction across entire organizations. That is, more data is being kept online and expanding data footprint impact needs to be addressed to meet business objectives using various techniques balancing performance, availability, capacity and energy or economics (PACE).

What does all of this have to do with IBM buying Storwize and Dell acquiring Ocarina?
If you have not pieced this together yet, let me net it out.

This is about the opportunity to address the organization wide expanding data footprint impact across all applications, types of data as well as tiers of storage to support business growth (more data to store) while maintaining QoS yet reduce per unit costs including management.

This is about expanding the story to the broader data footprint impact reduction from the more narrowly focused backup and dedupe discussion which are still in their infancy on a relative basis to their full market potential (read more here).

Now are you seeing where this is going and fits?

Does this mean IBM and Dell defocus on their existing Dedupe product lines or partners?
I do not believe so, at least as long as their respective revenue prevention departments are kept on the sidelines and off of the field of play. What I mean by this is that the challenge for IBM and Dell is similar to that of what others such as EMC are faced with having diverse portfolios or technology toolboxes. The challenge is messaging to the bigger issues, then aligning the right tool to the task at hand to address given issues and opportunities instead of singularly focused on a specific product causing revenue prevention elsewhere.

As an example, for backup, I would expect Dell to continue to work with its existing dedupe backup centric partners and technologies however find new opportunities to leverage their Ocarina solution. Likewise, IBM I would expect to continue to show customers where Tivoli software based dedupe or Protectier (aka the deduper formerly known as Diligent) or other target based dedupe fits and expand into other data footprint impact areas with Storewize.

Does this change the playing field?
IMHO these moves as well as some previous moves by the likes of EMC and NetApp among others are examples of expanding the scope and dimension of the playing field. That is, the focus is much more than just dedupe for backup or of virtual machines (e.g. VMware vSphere or Microsoft HyperV).

This signals a growing awareness around the much larger and broader opportunity around organization wide data footprint impact reduction. In the broader context some applications or data gets compressed either in application software such as databases, file systems, operating systems or even hypervisors as well as in networks using protocol or bandwidth optimizers as well as inline compression or post processing techniques as has been the case with streaming tape devices for some time.

This also means that where with dedupe the primary focus or marketing angle up until recently has been around reduction ratios, to meet the needs of time or performance sensitive applications data transfer rates also become important.

Hence the role of policy based data footprint reduction where the right tool or technique to meet specific service requirements is applied. For those vendors with a diverse data footprint impact reduction tool kit including archive, compression, dedupe, thin provision among other techniques, I would expect to hear expanded messaging around the theme of applying the right tool to the task at hand.

Does this mean Dell bought Ocarina to accessorize EqualLogic?
Perhaps, however that would then beg the question of why EqualLogic needs accessorizing. Granted there are many EqualLogic along with other Dell sold storage systems attached to Dell and other vendors servers operating as NFS or Windows CIFS file servers that are candidates for Ocarina. However there are also many environments that do not yet include Dell EqualLogic solutions where Ocarina is a means for Dell to extend their reach enabling those organizations to do more with what they have while supporting growth.

In other words, Ocarina can be used to accessorize, or, it can be used to generate and create pull through for various Dell products. I also see a very strong affinity and opportunity for Dell to combine their recent Exanet NAS storage clustering software with Dell servers, storage to create bulk or scale out solutions similar to what HP and other vendors have done. Of course what Dell does with the Ocarina software over time, where they integrate it into their own products as well as OEM to others should be interesting to watch or speculate upon.

Does this mean IBM bought Storwize to accessorize XIV?
Well, I guess if you put a gateway (or software on a server which is the same thing) in front of XIV to transform it into a NAS system, sure, then Storwize could be used to increase the net usable capacity of the XIV installed base. However that is a lot of work and cost for what is on a relative basis a small footprint, yet it is a viable option never the less.

IMHO IBM has much more of a play, perhaps a home run by walking before they run by placing Storwize in front of their existing large installed base of NetApp N series (not to mention targeting NetApps own install base) as well as complimenting their SONAS solutions. From there as IBM gets their legs and mojo, they could go on the attack by going after other vendors NAS solutions with an efficiency story similar to how IBM server groups target other vendors server business for takeout opportunities except in a complimenting manner.

Longer term I would not be surprised to see IBM continue development of the block based IP (as well as file) in the storwize product for deployment in solutions ranging from SVC to their own or OEM based products along with articulating their comprehensive data footprint reduction solution portfolio. What will be important for IBM to do is articulating what solution to use when, where, why and how without confusing their customers, partners and rest of the industry (something that Dell will also have to do).

Some links for additional reading on the above and related topics

• Data footprint reduction (Part 1): Life beyond dedupe
• Chapter 8 and 10: The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC)
• Business Benefits of Data Footprint Impact Reduction
• Long-Term Data Protection and Retention – Finding the Correct Balance
• Application Transparency and Co-existence with Real-Time Data Compression
• Enabling a Green and Energy Efficient Storage with Real-time Compression
• Real-time Data Compression Integrity and Reliability
• Real-Time Data Compression Performance Considerations
• Real-time Data Compression for On-line Active Data
• Application Agnostic Real-time Data Compression
• Saving Money with Green IT: Time To Invest In Information Factories
• Storage Efficiency and Optimization – The Other Green
• Shifting from energy avoidance to energy efficiency
• Industry Trends and Perspectives: Tape, Disk and Dedupe Coexistence
• The Many Flavors of Deduplication
• Experts Share De-Dupe Insights
• Business Benefits of Policy Based Data De-Duplication
• Comments on IBM buying Storwize primary compression
• Comments on Dell buying Ocarina and primary

Wrap up (for now)

Organizations of all shape and size are encountering some form of growing data footprint impact that currently, or soon will need to be addressed. Given that different applications and types of data along with associated storage mediums or tiers have various performance, availability, capacity, energy as well as economic characteristics multiple data footprint impact reduction tools or techniques are needed. What this all means is that the focus of data footprint reduction is expanding beyond that of just dedupe for backup or other early deployment scenarios.

Note what this means is that dedupe has an even brighter future than where it currently is focused which is still only scratching the surface of potential market adoption as was discussed in part 1 of this series.

However this also means that dedupe is not the only solution to all data footprint reduction scenarios. Other techniques including archiving, compression, data management, thin provisioning, data deletion, tiered storage and consolidation will start to gain respect, coverage discussions and debates.

Bottom line, use the most applicable technologies or combinations along with best practice for the task and activity at hand.

For some applications reduction ratios are an important focus on the tools or modes of operations that achieve those results.

Likewise for other applications where the focus is on performance with some data reduction benefit, tools are optimized for performance first and reduction secondary.

Thus I expect messaging from some vendors to adjust (expand) to those capabilities that they have in their toolboxes (product portfolios) offerings

Consequently, IMHO some of the backup centric dedupe solutions may find themselves in niche roles in the future unless they can diversity. Vendors with multiple data footprint reduction tools will also do better than those with only a single function or focused tool.

However for those who only have a single or perhaps a couple of tools, well, guess what the approach and messaging will be. After all, if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, if all you have is a screw driver, well, you get the picture.

On the other hand, if you are still not clear on what all this means, send me a note, give a call, post a comment or a tweet and will be happy to discuss with you.

Oh, FWIW, if interested, disclosure: Storwize was a client a couple of years ago.

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio

Now, before any Drs or Divas of Dedupe get concerned and feel the need to debate dedupes expanding role, success or applicability, relax, take a deep breath, then read on and take another breath before responding if so inclined.

The reason I mention this is that some may mistake this as a piece against or not in favor of dedupe as it talks about life beyond dedupe which could be mistaken as indicating dedupes diminished role which is not the case (read ahead and see figure 5 to see the bigger picture).

Likewise some might feel that since this piece talks about archiving for compliance and non regulatory situations along with compression, data management and other forms of data footprint reduction they may be compelled to defend dedupes honor and future role.

Again, relax, take a deep breath and read on, this is not about the death of dedupe.

Now for others, you might wonder why the dedupe tongue in check humor mentioned above (which is what it is) and the answer is quite simple. The industry in general is drunk on dedupe and in some cases thus having numbed its senses not to mention having blurred its vision of the even bigger opportunities for the business benefits of data footprint reduction beyond todays backup centric or vmware server virtualization dedupe discussions.

Likewise, it is time for the industry to wake (or sober) up and instead of trying to stuff everything under or into the narrowly focused dedupe bottle. Instead, realize that there is a broader umbrella called data footprint impact reduction which includes among other techniques, dedupe, archive, compression, data management, data deletion and thin provisioning across all types of data and applications. What this means is a broader opportunity or market than what exists or being discussed today leveraging different techniques, technologies and best practices.

Consequently this piece is about expanding the discussion to the larger opportunity for vendors or vars to extend their focus to the bigger world of overall data footprint impact reduction beyond where currently focused. Likewise, this is about IT customers realizing that there are more opportunities to address data and storage optimization across your entire organization using various techniques instead of just focusing on backup.

In other words, there is a very bright future for dedupe as well as other techniques and technologies that fall under the data footprint reduction umbrella including data stored online, offline, near line, primary, secondary, tertiary, virtual and in a public or private cloud..

Before going further however lets take a step back and look at some business along with IT issues, challenges and opportunities.

What is the business and IT issue or challenge?
Given that there is no such thing as a data or information recession shown in figure 1, IT organizations of all size are faced with the constant demand to store more data, including multiple copies of the same or similar data, for longer periods of time.

Figure 1: IT resource demand growth continues

The result is an expanding data footprint, increased IT expenses, both capital and operational, due to additional Infrastructure Resource Management (IRM) activities to sustain given levels of application Quality of Service (QoS) delivery shown in figure 2.

Some common IT costs associated with supporting an increased data footprint include among others:

• Data storage hardware and management software tools acquisition
• Associated networking or IO connectivity hardware, software and services
• Recurring maintenance and software renewal fees
• Facilities fees for floor space, power and cooling along with IT staffing
• Physical and logical security for data and IT resources
• Data protection for HA, BC or DR including backup, replication and archiving

Figure 2: IT Resources and cost balancing conflicts and opportunities

Figure 2 shows the result is that IT organizations of all size are faced with having to do more with what they have or with less including maximizing available resources. In addition, IT organizations often have to overcome common footprint constraints (available power, cooling, floor space, server, storage and networking resources, management, budgets, and IT staffing) while supporting business growth.

Figure 2 also shows that to support demand, more resources are needed (real or virtual) in a denser footprint, while maintaining or enhancing QoS plus lowering per unit resource cost. The trick is improving on available resources while maintaining QoS in a cost effective manner. By comparison, traditionally if costs are reduced, one of the other curves (amount of resources or QoS) are often negatively impacted and vice versa. Meanwhile in other situations the result can be moving problems around that later resurface elsewhere. Instead, find, identify, diagnose and prescribe the applicable treatment or form of data footprint reduction or other IT IRM technology, technique or best practices to cure the ailment.

What is driving the expanding data footprint?
Granted more data can be stored in the same or smaller physical footprint than in the past, thus requiring less power and cooling per Gbyte, Tbyte or PByte. Data growth rates necessary to sustain business activity, enhanced IT service delivery and enable new applications are placing continued demands to move, protect, preserve, store and serve data for longer periods of time.

The popularity of rich media and Internet based applications has resulted in explosive growth of unstructured file data requiring new and more scalable storage solutions. Unstructured data includes spreadsheets, Power Point, slide decks, Adobe PDF and word documents, web pages, video and audio JPEG, MP3 and MP4 files. This trend towards increasing data storage requirements does not appear to be slowing anytime soon for organizations of all sizes.

After all, there is no such thing as a data or information recession!

Changing data access lifecycles
Many strategies or marketing stories are built around the premise that shortly after data is created data is seldom, if ever accessed again. The traditional transactional model lends itself to what has become known as information lifecycle management (ILM) where data can and should be archived or moved to lower cost, lower performing, and high density storage or even deleted where possible.

Figure 3 shows as an example on the left side of the diagram the traditional transactional data lifecycle with data being created and then going dormant. The amount of dormant data will vary by the type and size of an organization along with application mix. 

Figure 3: Changing access and data lifecycle patterns

However, unlike the transactional data lifecycle models where data can be removed after a period of time, Web 2.0 and related data needs to remain online and readily accessible. Unlike traditional data lifecycles where data goes dormant after a period of time, on the right side of figure 3, data is created and then accessed on an intermittent basis with variable frequency. The frequency between periods of inactivity could be hours, days, weeks or months and, in some cases, there may be sustained periods of activity.

A common example is a video or some other content that gets created and posted to a web site or social networking site such as Face book, Linked in, or You Tube among others. Once the content is discussed, while it may not change, additional comment and collaborative data can be wrapped around the data as additional viewers discover and comment on the content. Solution approaches for the new category and data lifecycle model include low cost, relative good performing high capacity storage such as clustered bulk storage as well as leveraging different forms of data footprint reduction techniques.

Given that a large (and growing) percentage of new data is unstructured, NAS based storage solutions including clustered, bulk, cloud and managed service offerings with file based access are gaining in popularity. To reduce cost along with support increased business demands (figure 2), a growing trend is to utilize clustered, scale out and bulk NAS file systems that support NFS, CIFS for concurrent large and small IOs as well as optionally pNFS for large parallel access of files. These solutions are also increasingly being deployed with either built in or add on accessorized data footprint reduction techniques including archive, policy management, dedupe and compression among others.

What is your data footprint impact?
Your data footprint impact is the total data storage needed to support your various business application and information needs. Your data footprint may be larger than how much actual data storage you have as seen in figure 4. In Figure 4, an example is an organization that has 20TBytes of storage space allocated and being used for databases, email, home directories, shared documents, engineering documents, financial and other data in different formats (structured and unstructured) not to mention varying access patterns.

Figure 4: Expanding data footprint due to data proliferation and copies being retained

Of the 20TBytes of data allocated and used, it is very likely that the consumed storage space is not 100 percent used. Database tables may be sparsely (empty or not fully) allocated and there is likely duplicate data in email and other shared documents or folders. Additionally, of the 20TBytes, 10TBytes are duplicated to three different areas on a regular basis for application testing, training and business analysis and reporting purposes.

The overall data footprint is the total amount of data including all copies plus the additional storage required for supporting that data such as extra disks for Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) protection or remote mirroring.

In this overly simplified example, the data footprint and subsequent storage requirement are several times that of the 20TBytes of data. Consequently, the larger the data footprint the more data storage capacity and performance bandwidth needed, not to mention being managed, protected and housed (powered, cooled, situated in a rack or cabinet on a floor somewhere).

Data footprint reduction techniques
While data storage capacity has become less expensive on a relative basis, as data footprint continue to expand in order to support business requirements, more IT resources will be needed to be made available in a cost effective, yet QoS satisfying manner (again, refer back to figure 2). What this means is that more IT resources including server, storage and networking capacity, management tools along with associated software licensing and IT staff time will be required to protect, preserve and serve information.

By more effectively managing the data footprint across different applications and tiers of storage, it is possible to enhance application service delivery and responsiveness as well as facilitate more timely data protection to meet compliance and business objectives. To realize the full benefits of data footprint reduction, look beyond backup and offline data improvements to include online and active data using various techniques such as those in table 1 among others.

There are several methods (shown in table 1) that can be used to address data footprint proliferation without compromising data protection or negatively impacting application and business service levels. These approaches include archiving of structured (database), semi structured (email) and unstructured (general files and documents), data compression (real time and offline) and data deduplication.

Table 1: Data footprint reduction approaches and techniques

Archiving for compliance and general data retention
Data archiving is often perceived as a solution for compliance, however, archiving can be used for many other non compliance purposes. These include general data footprint reduction, to boost performance and enhance routine data maintenance and data protection. Archiving can be applied to structured databases data, semi structured email data and attachments and unstructured file data.

A key to deploying an archiving solution is having insight into what data exists along with applicable rules and policies to determine what can be archived, for how long, how many copies and how data ultimately may be finally retired or deleted. Archiving requires a combination of hardware, software and people to implement business rules.

A challenge with archiving is having the time and tools available to identify what data should be archived and what data can be securely destroyed when no longer needed. Further complicating archiving is that knowledge of the data value is also needed; this may well include legal issues as to who is responsible for making decisions on what data to keep or discard.

If a business can invest in the time and software tools, as well as identify which data to archive to support an effective archive strategy, the returns can be very positive towards reducing the data footprint without limiting the amount of information available for use.

Data compression (real time and offline)

Data compression is a commonly used technique for reducing the size of data being stored or transmitted to improve network performance or reduce the amount of storage capacity needed for storing data. If you have used a traditional or TCP/IP based telephone or cell phone, watched either a DVD or HDTV, listened to an MP3, transferred data over the internet or used email you have most likely relied on some form of compression technology that is transparent to you. Some forms of compression are time delayed, such as using PKZIP to zip files, while others are real time or on the fly based such as when using a network, cell phone or listening to an MP3.

Two different approaches to data compression that vary in time delay or impact on application performance along with the amount of compression and loss of data are loss less (no data loss) and lossy (some data loss for higher compression ratio). In addition to these approaches, there are also different implementations of including real time for no performance impact to applications and time delayed where there is a performance impact to applications.

In contrast to traditional ZIP or offline, time delayed compression approaches that require complete decompression of data prior to modification, online compression allows for reading from, or writing to, any location within a compressed file without full file decompression and resulting application or time delay. Real time appliance or target based compression capabilities are well suited for supporting online applications including databases, OLTP, email, home directories, web sites and video streaming among others without consuming host server CPU or memory resources or degrading storage system performance.

Note that with the increase of CPU server processing performance along with multiple cores, server based compression running in applications such as database, email, file systems or operating systems can be a viable option for some environments.

A scenario for using real time data compression is for time sensitive applications that require large amounts of data such as online databases, video and audio media servers, web and analytic tools. For example, databases such as Oracle support NFS3 Direct IO (DIO) and Concurrent IO (CIO) capabilities to enable random and direct addressing of data within an NFS based file. This differs from traditional NFS operations where a file would be sequential read or written.

Another example of using real time compression is to combine a NAS file server configured with 300GB or 600GB high performance 15.5K Fibre Channel or SAS HDDs in addition to flash based SSDs to boost the effective storage capacity of active data without introducing a performance bottleneck associated with using larger capacity HDDs. Of course, compression would vary with the type of solution being deployed and type of data being stored just as dedupe ratios will differ depending on algorithm along with if text or video or object based among other factors.

Deduplication (Dedupe)

Data deduplication (also known as single instance storage, commonalty factoring, data difference or normalization) is a data footprint reduction technique that eliminates the occurrence of the same data. Deduplication works by normalizing the data being backed up or stored by eliminating recurring or duplicate copies of files or data blocks depending on the implementation.

Some data deduplication solutions boast spectacular ratios for data reduction given specific scenarios, such as backup of repetitive and similar files, while providing little value over a broader range of applications.

This is in contrast with traditional data compression approaches that provide lower, yet more predictable and consistent data reduction ratios over more types of data and application, including online and primary storage scenarios. For example, in environments where there is little to no common or repetitive data files, data deduplication will have little to no impact while data compression generally will yield some amount of data footprint reduction across almost all types of data.

Some data deduplication solution providers have either already added, or have announced plans to add, compression techniques to compliment and increase the data footprint effectiveness of their solutions across a broader range of applications and storage scenarios, attesting to the value and importance of data compression to reduce data footprint.

When looking at deduplication solutions, determine if the solution is designed to scale in terms of performance, capacity and availability over a large amount of data along with how restoration of data will be impacted by scaling for growth. Other items to consider include how data is reduplicated, such as real time using inline or some form of time delayed post processing, and the ability to select the mode of operation.

For example, a dedupe solution may be able to process data at a specific ingest rate inline until a certain threshold is hit and then processing reverts to post processing so as to not cause a performance degradation to the application writing data to the deduplication solution. The downside of post processing is that more storage is needed as a buffer. It can, however, also enable solutions to scale without becoming a bottleneck during data ingestion.

However, there is life beyond dedupe which is to in no way diminish dedupe or its very strong and bright future, one that Im increasingly convinced of having talked with hundreds of IT professionals (e.g. the customers) is that only the surface is being scratched for dedupe, not to mention larger data footprint impact opportunity seen in figure 5.

Figure 5: Dedupe adoption and deployment waves over time

While dedupe is a popular technology from a discussion standpoint and has good deployment traction, it is far from reaching mass customer adoption or even broad coverage in environments where it is being used. StorageIO research shows broadest adoption of dedupe centered around backup in smaller or SMB environments (dedupe deployment wave one in figure 5) with some deployment in Remote Office Branch Office (ROBO) work groups as well as departmental environments.

StorageIO research also shows that complete adoption in many of those SMB, ROBO, work group or smaller environments has yet to reach 100 percent. This means that there remains a large population that has yet to deploy dedupe as well as further opportunities to increase the level of dedupe deployment by those already doing so.

There has also been some early adoption in larger core IT environments where dedupe coexists with complimenting existing data protection and preservation practices. Another current deployment scenario for dedupe has been for supporting core edge deployments in larger environments that provide support for backup and data protection of ROBO, work group and departmental systems.

Note that figure 5 simply shows the general types of environments in which dedupe is being adopted and not any sort of indicators as to the degree of deployment by a given customer or IT environment.

What to do about your expanding data footprint impact?
Develop an overall data foot reduction strategy that leverages different techniques and technologies addressing online primary, secondary and offline data. Assess and discover what data exists and how it is used in order to effectively manage storage needs.

Determine policies and rules for retention and deletion of data combining archiving, compression (online and offline) and dedupe in a comprehensive data footprint strategy. The benefit of a broader, more holistic, data footprint reduction strategy is the ability to address the overall environment, including all applications that generate and use data as well as IRM or overhead functions that compound and impact the data footprint.

Data footprint reduction: life beyond (and complimenting) dedupe
The good news is that the Drs. and Divas of dedupe marketing (the ones who also are good at the disco dedupe dance debates) have targeted backup as an initial market sweet (and success) spot shown in figure 5 given the high degree of duplicate data.

Figure 6: Leverage multiple data footprint reduction techniques and technologies

However that same good news is bad news in that there is now a stigma that dedupe is only for backup, similar to how archive was hijacked by the compliance marketing folks in the post Y2K era. There are several techniques that can be used individually to address specific data footprint reduction issues or in combination as seen in figure 7 to implement a more cohesive and effective data footprint reduction strategy.

Figure 7: How various data footprint reduction techniques are complimentary

What this means is that both archive, dedupe as well as other forms of data footprint reduction can and should be used beyond where they have been target marketed using the applicable tool for the task at hand. For example, a common industry rule of thumb is that on average, ten percent of data changes per day (your mileage and rate of change will certainly vary given applications, environment and other factors).

Now assuming that you have 100TB (feel free to subtract a zero or two, or add as many as needed) of data (note I did not say storage capacity or percent utilized), ten percent change would be 10TB that needs to be backed up, replicated and so forth. Now with basic 2 to 1 streaming tape compression (2.5 to 1 in upcoming LTO enhancements) would reduce the daily backup footprint from 10TB to 5TB.

Using dedupe with 10 to 1 would get that from 10TB down to 1TB or about the size of a large capacity disk drive. With 20 to 1 that cuts the daily backup down to 500GB and so forth. The net effect is that more daily backups can be stored in the same footprint which in turn helps expedite individual file recover by having more options to choose from off of the disk based cache, buffer or storage pool.

On the other hand, if your objective is to reduce and eliminate storage capacity, then the same amount of backups can be stored on less disk freeing up resources. Now take the savings times the number of days in your backup retention and you should see the numbers start to add up.

Now what about the other 90 percent of the data that may not have changed, or, that did change and exists on higher performance storage?

Can its footprint impact be reduced?

The answer should be perhaps or it depends as well as prompts the question of what tool would be best. There is a popular thinking as is often the case with industry buzzwords or technologies to use it everywhere. After all goes the thinking, if it is a good thing why not use and deploy more of it everywhere?

Keep in mind that dedupe trades time to perform thinking and apply intelligence to further reduce data in exchange for space capacity. Thus trading time for space capacity can have a negative impact on applications that need lower response time, higher performance where the focus is on rates vs ratios. For example, the other 90 to 100 percent of the data in the above example may have to be on a mix of high and medium performance storage to meet QoS or service level agreement (SLA) objectives. While it would fun or perhaps cool to try and achieve a high data reduction ratio on the entire 100TB of active data with dedupe (e.g. trying to achieve primary dedupe), the performance impacts could have a negative impact.

The option is to apply a mix of different data footprint reduction techniques across the entire 100TB. That is, use dedupe where applicable and higher reduction ratios can be achieved while balancing performance, compression used for streaming data to tape for retention or archive as well as in databases or other applications software not to mention in networks. Likewise, use real time compression or what some refer to as primary dedupe for online active changing data along with online static read only data.

Deploy a comprehensive data footprint reduction strategy combining various techniques and technologies to address point solution needs as well as the overall environment, including online, near line for backup, and offline for archive data.

Lets not forget about archiving, thin provisioning, space saving snapshots, commonsense data management among other techniques across the entire environment. In other words, if your focus is just on dedupe for backup to achieve an optimized and efficient storage environment, you are also missing out on a larger opportunity. However, this also means having multiple tools or technologies in your IT IRM toolbox as well as understanding what to use when, where and why.

Data transfer rates is a key metric for performance (time) optimization such as meeting backup or restore or other data protection windows. Data reduction ratios is a key metric for capacity (space) optimization where the focus is on storing as much data in a given footprint

Some additional take away points:

• Develop a data footprint reduction strategy for online and offline data
• Energy avoidance can be accomplished by powering down storage
• Energy efficiency can be accomplished by using tiered storage to meet different needs
• Measure and compare storage based on idle and active workload conditions
• Storage efficiency metrics include IOPS or bandwidth per watt for active data
• Storage capacity per watt per footprint and cost is a measure for in active data
• Small percentage reductions on a large scale have big benefits
• Align the applicable form of virtualization for the given task at hand

Some links for additional reading on the above and related topics

• Data footprint reduction (Part 2): Dell, IBM, Ocarina and Storwize
• Chapter 8 and 10: The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC)
• Business Benefits of Data Footprint Impact Reduction
• Long-Term Data Protection and Retention – Finding the Correct Balance
• Application Transparency and Co-existence with Real-Time Data Compression
• Enabling a Green and Energy Efficient Storage with Real-time Compression
• Real-time Data Compression Integrity and Reliability
• Real-Time Data Compression Performance Considerations
• Real-time Data Compression for On-line Active Data
• Application Agnostic Real-time Data Compression
• Saving Money with Green IT: Time To Invest In Information Factories
• Storage Efficiency and Optimization – The Other Green
• Shifting from energy avoidance to energy efficiency
• Industry Trends and Perspectives: Tape, Disk and Dedupe Coexistence
• The Many Flavors of Deduplication
• Experts Share De-Dupe Insights
• Business Benefits of Policy Based Data De-Duplication
• Comments on IBM buying Storwize primary compression
• Comments on Dell buying Ocarina and primary

Wrap up (for now, read part II here)

For some applications reduction ratios are an important focus on the tools or modes of operations that achieve those results.

Likewise for other applications where the focus is on performance with some data reduction benefit, tools are optimized for performance first and reduction secondary.

Thus I expect messaging from some vendors to adjust (expand) to those capabilities that they have in their toolboxes (product portfolios) offerings

Consequently, IMHO some of the backup centric dedupe solutions may find themselves in niche roles in the future unless they can diversity. Vendors with multiple data footprint reduction tools will also do better than those with only a single function or focused tool.

However for those who only have a single or perhaps a couple of tools, well, guess what the approach and messaging will be.

After all, if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, if all you have is a screw driver, well, you get the picture.

On the other hand, if you are still not clear on what all this means, send me a note, give a call, post a comment or a tweet and will be happy to discuss with you.

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio

As a society, we face growing problems repairing and maintaining the vital infrastructure we once took for granted.

Most of these incidents involve aging, worn-out physical infrastructure desperately in need of repair or replacement. But infrastructure doesn’t have to be old or even physical to cause problems when it fails.

The IT systems and applications all around us form a digital infrastructure that most enterprises take for granted until it’s not there.

Bottom line, there really isn’t much choice.

You can either pay up front now to update aging infrastructures, or, wait and pay more later. Either way, there will be a price to pay and you can not realize a cost savings until you actually embark on that endeavor.

Here is the link to the full blog post over at Enterprise Efficiency.

Cheers gs

Greg Schulz – Author The Green and Virtual Data Center (CRC) and Resilient Storage Networks (Elsevier)

twitter @storageio