You will remember that I recently posted a comment about migration costs, specifically with relation to Incipient. My view was (and still is) that the majority of migration costs come from preparatory and remedial work rather than execution of the migration. Well, Incipient asked for the right of reply and I had a call last week with Robert Infantino, their Marketing and Alliances Sr VP.
The $5000/TB figure they were quoting was an average they had seen in the industry for certain vendors’ professional services time to come in and perform the migration work on behalf of the customer. Incipient’s take was that they could provide their appliance/software expertise to provide the same service but at a significantly reduced cost (I won’t quote specific numbers here, but the number quoted was much lower than the equivalent cost from “a vendor”). So, I guess with clarification, it is more clear that Incipient were comparing the vendor costs versus their product costs and not including any internal customer costs (project management, preparation work etc) in the calculation. This seems a more appropriate comparison in my opinion.
Getting back to the vendor discussion, there’s a real issue here. If vendor X wants to sell you their latest technology, they need to accept and take the hit on helping with migration to their new array. This should be even more so where the vendor doesn’t change as this should be a “no brainer” and built into the technology.
In a world where hardware is becoming a commodity, one differentiator will be the vendor who can minimise the effort/cost and impact of migrating from one technology to another. Until then, products like SVC and those from Incipient will continue to have a market position – oh and humble consultants like yours truly!
_uacct = “UA-1104321-2″;
- Netapp: The Inflexibility of Flexvols (10,209)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Storage Spaces (9,661)
- Enterprise Computing: Why Thin Provisioning Is Not The Holy Grail for Utilisation (8,061)
- Comparing iSCSI Targets – Microsoft, StarWind, iSCSI Cake and Kernsafe – Part I (6,025)
- Review: Compellent Storage Center – Part II (5,676)
- Data ONTAP 8.0 – Part III (5,162)
- Why Does Microsoft Hyper-V Not Support NFS? (5,084)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Virtual Fibre Channel (4,538)
- How To: Enable iSNS Server in Windows 2008 (4,527)
- Back to Blogging (4,455)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Virtual Fibre Channel (12)
- Comparing iSCSI Targets – Microsoft, StarWind, iSCSI Cake and Kernsafe – Part I (6)
- Rise of The IT Generalist – A Bad Idea? (6)
- Netapp: The Inflexibility of Flexvols (5)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Resilient File System (4)
- EMC Releases All Flash VNX (3)
- HUS VM – Hitachi’s New Midrange Baby (3)
- Review: AWS Storage Gateway (3)
- 3PAR Continues to be HP Storage Cornerstone (3)
- VAAI Follow Up – VMware Recommend Disabling Thin Reclaim (2)