EMC have just announced a new product – Storage Configuration Advisor (see the press release here). A quick review of the press release and the datasheet shows a remarkable similarity to Netapp’s SANScreen. Both products are pitched as datacentre automation tools – they monitor your configuration and highlight logical inconsistencies as they occur. SANScreen has been expanded to include some reporting but essentially the core product has remained the same since the Onaro days.
So, should Netapp be worried? I think so. EMC have a massive software portfolio and the resources (and desire) to execute on developing and pushing the product into customer sites. They can easily afford to give the software away as part of a bundled array and switch deal. On the other hand, Netapp don’t have a good record on management software. Could they really afford to give SANScreen away, bearing in mind the product manages hardware that isn’t their core competency? Probably not.
Any SANScreen customers heard from EMC yet?
12 Responses to Enterprise Computing: Is EMC Storage Configuration Advisor A SANScreen Killer?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Use Symantec and know your sensitive data is protected with industry-leading backup & recovery software.
Experience Symantec Backup Software
No new value since the acquisition for SANscreen?
I beg to differ.
We’ve added iSCSI, VMware, Capacity planning, data warehousing and a proven track record for simplicity.
SCA is, at best, comparable to an old version of SANscreen.
Time for you to get a refresher…
http://blogs.netapp.com/extensible_netapp/2009/05/sanscreen-lives.html
> SANScreen plays in the market that Netapp isn’t – enterprise storage arrays.
This is the second factual error.
And that differs from Celerra, CLARiiON, Centera, Atmos, even the V-Max? Are you suggesting that none of them is any different from my laptop because their just x86 PCs running Unix/Windows/some old crufty OS from Data General?
You’ll be singing the praises of BlueArc next, given that it’s based on magical FPGAs!
Is it your assumption that FC LUNs are enterprise, and that iSCSI and NAS aren’t? That’s very narrow. Start with defining mid-range requirements, and I think you’d be surprised how quickly you run out of differentiators for enterprise. Perhaps monolithic and price might be the only qualifiers?
Chris,
can I get an update on your opinion now we are 18+ months down the track.
I think recent history is showing that your opinion was completely and utterly wrong for SCA, SANScreen and Enterprise being only big iron.
As for FCoE overtaking iSCSI. I am still holding my breath. I think you vastly overestimated the rate of change in that space.
Hindsight is a beautiful thing, except for a future-casting blogger.
Aaron,
First of all, it’s worth pointing out for the sake of disclosure that you are a technical account manager for Netapp and so have a vested interest in the answer to this question.
So, yes I agree, hindsight is a beautiful thing. I’m happy to make predictions and be proved wrong, it’s all part of the game. I have no view on the sales of EMC or Netapp products and I doubt neither company would be prepared to release figures.
As for the FCoE/iSCSI debate, I don’t see iSCSI getting any further into the Enterprise environment. It’s still on low end storage arrays and not on serious enterprise equipment. FcoE is making slow inroads but it always will be slow, because of the amount of FC already deployed, but with the juggernaut of companies such as Cisco, it will become mainstream.
It’s almost the end of the year. Time for more predictions. Whether they’re right or wrong, it’s not going to stop me.
Chris
Aaron,
How did your appraisal go? I doubt if SANScreen or iSCSI is going to be there in the market after a year or two from now. So better look for something new to add to your CV.
[...] Enterprise Computing: Is EMC Storage Configuration Advisor A …May 13, 2009 … SANScreen has been expanded to include some reporting but essentially the core product has remained the same since the Onaro days. … [...]
Kostadis
Actually, I’ve been poring over the SANScreen manuals in recent weeks for an unrelated reason, so I have an excellent view of what the product purports to offer. Unfortunately you missed the point of my post. SANScreen plays in the market that Netapp isn’t – enterprise storage arrays. EMC can offer the Storage Configuration Adviser as part of a bundled purchase and displace expensive SANScreen deployments. Even if SANScreen is currently superior, customers can opt save costs and go with the bundle option. Unfortunately Netapp can’t do that; the offer of free or cheap SANSCreen isn’t going to tempt enterprise storage array customers to move to using Netapp filers for their block-based fibre channel storage. So, to recoup the $120m purchase price, that’s a mere 2.4 million storage ports at $50 a piece that will need monitoring. I don’t see SANScreen being given away any time soon.
Anyway, for fun, I’ve added a poll to the blog…
Kostadis, I assume you mean that Netapp isn’t in the enterprise storage array market.
OK, I’ll concede that Netapp filers support FC LUNs, however as they’re effectively PCs running Unix, then they’re more the modular than enterprise market. It’s a bit like using a DMX-4 for iSCSI – you could, but you just wouldn’t…
Alex, I did say “enterprise”. I’d not class Celerra/Clariion etc as enterprise quality, so I’d be prepared to concede that filers could compete in this “midrange” market. Perhaps a good definition of enterprise and midrange is required.
Chris
Alex
Far from it. However it’s horses for courses. Enterprise arrays offer a higher degree of resiliency and availability. Typically FC LUNs have been used on enterprise, unsurprisingly because they’re connected to the most expensive interconnect – fibre channel. Why use anything else if you just bought the Rolls Royce of storage hardware? iSCSI is a kludged protocol that Cisco/IBM developed to be “anything other than FC”. It never made the big time and will now die a death as FCoE overtakes it. And NAS, well that’s just for files.