The whole one skillset argument isn’t quite correct though,as you still need to present and layout the storage on the DMX,CX,etc in order to virtualize it behind the USPV, meaning you need the skills to allocate storage from those arrays as well as planning the layout on them.

Thanks for the feedback. I think you’re right that platforms are converging. We can see that already with EMC’s Symmetrix/CLARiiON and other devices. It makes sense really; the technology is becoming more reliable; customers want reduced cost and commodity storage will be delivered in the future using commodity components. The differentiator will be software.

Chris

Agreed. Perhaps the main differential is the scalability of each of the platforms, both performance and capacity.

Chris

Chris

Hitachi (where I work) is focused on bringing enterprise class capabilities (like dynamic provisioning) to the midrange products so they can meet the needs of the midrange market throughout their lifecycle. At the same time we’re also enhancing our enterprise products. The USP V/VM provide features the evolving enterprise market requires (storage virtualization, advanced data mobility, tiered storage management, massive scalability, high performance, etc.).

You’re right in that we’re bringing the ‘enterprise-class’ functionality to our midrange AMS 2000. Many of these were previously considered “enterprise-class”:
* Automatic allocation of workloads between controllers to alleviate bottlenecks
* Eliminates administrative complexities of ensuring that servers have primary paths to the controller that “owns” their LUNs
* Up to 32 backend data paths (controller to disk) for the best performance available from modular storage
* Choice of high performance SAS and lower $$/GB SATA drives that can be intermixed in the same tray
* Dense disk trays that reduce the amount of GB/floor tile
* Dynamic provisioning that improves performance with wide striping and reduces up front purchases of extra capacity
* Drive spin down to reduce energy costs

As I like to see it, both the USP and AMS 2000 are optimized for the ever-evolving requirements of both the enterprise and midrange market.

Interesting post.

I think scalability has always been a major differentiator – enterprise scales well compared to midrange/modular.

Of the announcements made re the AMS enhancements, Im not sure any of them change where the AMS stands relative to the items on storagebods definiton of enterprise.

For me a major differentiator between the AMS and the USP has been around services like TrueCopy, ShadowImage and the likes. The AMS and its predecessors have always been severely limited in comparisaon to the USP (number of pairs and scalability of the software…….). I suppose the limited cache and ports is a huge factor and restricts number of pairs and the likes.

Now if you could cluster AMS’s then that might be intereting.

Now what does the 32MB page size tell us about TP extent sizes? How come Hitachi didnt go the route of other vendors and have an extent size measured in KB rather than MB? I Will be posting on that at some point.

Good point – mainframe is effectively an “enterprise” feature….

Chris