<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Storage Architect &#187; sanscreen</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thestoragearchitect.com/tag/sanscreen/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thestoragearchitect.com</link>
	<description>Storage, Virtualisation &#38; Cloud</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:08:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Enterprise Computing: Netapp The $4Billion Product</title>
		<link>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2010/02/22/enterprise-computing-netapp-the-4billion-product/</link>
		<comments>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2010/02/22/enterprise-computing-netapp-the-4billion-product/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:54:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris M Evans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GestaltIT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Celerra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Centera]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data ONTAP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DataFort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EMC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netapp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanscreen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[V-Max]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thestoragearchitect.com/?p=1145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I had a conversation last week with a PR company doing research for Netapp.  This followed just after Netapp released their Q4 results, with revenue exceeding expectations at just over $1 billion.  It&#8217;s amazing how in the space of less than 20 years they have developed from nothing to a company selling a single $4 [...]<!--Begin ClixTrac.com Rotator Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://www.clixtrac.com/rotate/321"></script>
<!--End ClixTrac.com Rotator Code -->]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had a conversation last week with a PR company doing research for Netapp.  This followed just after Netapp released their Q4 results, with revenue exceeding expectations at just over $1 billion.  It&#8217;s amazing how in the space of less than 20 years they have developed from nothing to a company selling a single $4 billon product.</p>
<p>Lots of people will be quick to point out to me that Netapp sell lots of products.  Well, yes they do and the majority of those relate to a single core product &#8211; Data ONTAP running on some kind of bespoke hardware.  There are a few other bits and pieces out there &#8211; DataFort and SANScreen for example, but most software and hardware products still revolve around the core function of providing Networked Attached Storage.</p>
<p>Two thoughts intrigue me:</p>
<ul>
<li>Despite Netapp&#8217;s &#8220;reputation&#8221;, people still continue to buy from them.  By &#8220;reputation&#8221; I mean, complexity and price &#8211; I won&#8217;t even mention the sales culture.</li>
<li>Competition in the sector must surely mean that growth in the single NAS product can&#8217;t continue forever, when newer products that have been developed with the benefit of hindsight are available in the marketplace and those vendors become more established.</li>
</ul>
<p>It&#8217;s the second of these points that probably concerns me most.  Data ONTAP has some technical issues in performance and scalability.  The time taken to develop Data ONTAP 8 has demonstrated that integrating new features into the existing code base is a time consuming and presumably expensive exercise.  Netapp have no other product line to rely on and aren&#8217;t introducing new hardware/software as successors to the existing product line.</p>
<p>Compare Netapp to other vendors, specifically their arch-nemesis EMC.  EMC have fundamentally re-invented storage array technology with the introduction of V-Max.  Over the years they invested in technology other than their main Symmetrix range; CLARiiON, Centera, Celerra, Iomega, RecoverPoint are only a few that spring to mind.  There are many more.  The software portfolio of technology unrelated to Symmetrix is even greater.  Netapp remain fixed on their core product platform and the Data ONTAP architecture, attempting to make one hardware device fit all flavours of storage.</p>
<p>Despite the apparent flaws in Netapp&#8217;s technology, customers continue to buy and that is reflected in continued growth.  But surely it&#8217;s just a matter of time before their market share begins to erode.  Perhaps rather than acquiring technology that further expands features of their current platform (like Data Domain) they should branch out and buy into technology in other areas by acquiring 3Par, Compellent or Pillar perhaps.  Of course the only problem with following this direction is that it admits defeat in using the existing Data ONTAP platform as an all-protocol encompassing storage platform.  When you&#8217;ve spend years criticising the competition, you&#8217;ve pretty much painted yourself into a corner that becomes very difficult to get out of.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2010/02/22/enterprise-computing-netapp-the-4billion-product/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Enterprise Computing: Is EMC Storage Configuration Advisor A SANScreen Killer?</title>
		<link>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/05/13/enterprise-computing-is-emc-storage-configuration-advisor-a-sanscreen-killer/</link>
		<comments>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/05/13/enterprise-computing-is-emc-storage-configuration-advisor-a-sanscreen-killer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 08:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris M Evans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EMC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Onaro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanscreen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Storage Configuration Advisor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thestoragearchitect.com/?p=550</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>EMC have just announced a new product &#8211; Storage Configuration Advisor (see the press release <a href="http://www.emc.com/about/news/press/2009/20090512-01.htm" >here</a>).  A quick review of the press release and the <a href="http://www.emc.com/collateral/software/data-sheet/h6247-storage-config-ds.pdf" >datasheet</a> shows a remarkable similarity to Netapp&#8217;s <a href="http://www.netapp.com/us/products/management-software/sanscreen/sanscreen.html" >SANScreen</a>.  Both products are pitched as datacentre automation tools &#8211; they monitor your configuration and highlight logical [...]<!--Begin ClixTrac.com Rotator Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://www.clixtrac.com/rotate/321"></script>
<!--End ClixTrac.com Rotator Code -->]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EMC have just announced a new product &#8211; <strong>Storage Configuration Advisor</strong> (see the press release <a href="http://www.emc.com/about/news/press/2009/20090512-01.htm" >here</a>).  A quick review of the press release and the <a href="http://www.emc.com/collateral/software/data-sheet/h6247-storage-config-ds.pdf" >datasheet</a> shows a remarkable similarity to Netapp&#8217;s <a href="http://www.netapp.com/us/products/management-software/sanscreen/sanscreen.html" >SANScreen</a>.  Both products are pitched as datacentre automation tools &#8211; 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.</p>
<p>So, should Netapp be worried?  <strong>I think so.</strong>  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&#8217;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&#8217;t their core competency?  Probably not.  </p>
<p>Any SANScreen customers heard from EMC yet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2009/05/13/enterprise-computing-is-emc-storage-configuration-advisor-a-sanscreen-killer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I Stand Corrected</title>
		<link>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2008/01/12/i-stand-corrected/</link>
		<comments>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2008/01/12/i-stand-corrected/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris M Evans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deni O'Connor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DFM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DL6000 EMC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAS Insight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netapp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Onaro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanscreen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thestoragearchitect.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/i-stand-corrected/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://storagearchitect.blogspot.com/2008/01/two-for-price-of-one.html" >previous post</a> earlier this year I mentioned the <a href="http://www.onaro.com/" >Onaro</a> purchase by <a href="http://www.netapp.com/" >Network Appliance</a>. As I said at the time, I wasn&#8217;t aware Onaro&#8217;s SANScreen product even had a NAS module. It seems I was wrong, and thanks for Deni O&#8217;Connor for <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/stor/2008/0107stor2.html?fsrc=rss-storage" >indirectly</a> pointing it [...]<!--Begin ClixTrac.com Rotator Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://www.clixtrac.com/rotate/321"></script>
<!--End ClixTrac.com Rotator Code -->]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://storagearchitect.blogspot.com/2008/01/two-for-price-of-one.html" >previous post</a> earlier this year I mentioned the <a href="http://www.onaro.com/" >Onaro</a> purchase by <a href="http://www.netapp.com/" >Network Appliance</a>.  As I said at the time, I wasn&#8217;t aware Onaro&#8217;s SANScreen product even had a NAS module.  It seems I was wrong, and thanks for Deni O&#8217;Connor for <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/stor/2008/0107stor2.html?fsrc=rss-storage" >indirectly</a> pointing it out.  In fact, SANScreen now has NAS Insight which provides for NAS monitoring support.  However this feature was only made general availability on 31 December 2007, so you can hopefully excuse my oversight for not realising it has been released.</p>
<p>(On a side note, why are large Enterprises such as Onaro still not using RSS to announce product releases?  I haven&#8217;t got the time or inclination to trawl their websites each day.  RSS is so much easier.)</p>
<p>I had a quick look at the NAS Insight press release and details on their website.  Although there&#8217;s a demo, I couldn&#8217;t ascertain what NAS products (other than Netapp filers which are in the demonstration) the product supports.  That makes me think it supports nothing BUT Netapp (although I again stand to be corrected).  If that&#8217;s true then NAS Insight is a pointless feature for many customers who would want to use the product for cross vendor consolidation and certainly doesn&#8217;t demonstrate Onaro&#8217;s NAS credentials.  Compared to the last release of DFM I saw, NAS Insight is pretty poor.</p>
<p>To date my SANScreen exposure has been based on one large &#8220;global installation&#8221; of the product and presentations from the Onaro marketing team.  When an instance of SANScreen was enabled in one location of the global deployment, it created thousands of exceptions which then required manual intervention.  When I last had a presentation on the product (in October) there was a large number of SAN scenarios SANScreen wasn&#8217;t reporting on, a lot of these relating to non-EMC and replication support.  There&#8217;s still a long way to go yet.</p>
<p>Up to this point, Onaro may have developed relationships with the vendors which provides for ongoing access to new releases of their management tools in order to extract configuration information.  Going forward, will those companies still be as keen to provide that information to Netapp, who may be their direct competitor in the NAS (and non-NAS) marketplace?
<div class="blogger-post-footer">
<p>_uacct = &#8220;UA-1104321-2&#8243;;<br />
urchinTracker();
</p></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2008/01/12/i-stand-corrected/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two for the price of one</title>
		<link>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2008/01/03/two-for-the-price-of-one/</link>
		<comments>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2008/01/03/two-for-the-price-of-one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris M Evans</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ibm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Onaro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RAID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanscreen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tony Pearson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[xiv]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thestoragearchitect.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/two-for-the-price-of-one/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The holidays are over and it&#8217;s back to work for me. In fact I returned yesterday; the break was good however it is also good to be back.</p> <p>It seems that I&#8217;ve returned to a flurry of acquisitions. Yesterday there was the heavily reported (on the blogosphere) purchase of <a href="http://www.xivstorage.com/" >XiV</a> by IBM. Tony [...]<!--Begin ClixTrac.com Rotator Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://www.clixtrac.com/rotate/321"></script>
<!--End ClixTrac.com Rotator Code -->]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The holidays are over and it&#8217;s back to work for me. In fact I returned yesterday; the break was good however it is also good to be back.</p>
<p>It seems that I&#8217;ve returned to a flurry of acquisitions. Yesterday there was the heavily reported (on the blogosphere) purchase of <a href="http://www.xivstorage.com/" >XiV</a> by IBM. Tony Pearson gives a summary of the features on his <a href="http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/InsideSystemStorage?entry=ibm_acquires_xiv" >post</a>. One thing that interests me is the use of distributed writes across an entire array by creating 1MB blocks from (presumably) LUNs and filesystems. If a drive fails, then the data is still available on other disks in the system and spread across a great number rather than a single drive (RAID-1) or potentially a small number of drives (RAID5/6).</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been trying to get my head around what this means. On the one hand it sounds like a real problem, as a double drive failure could impact a wide number of hosts; it all depends on how well the 1MB chunks are distributed. However maybe it isn&#8217;t that much of a problem as the issue only arises when both of the chunks that mirror a 1MB block both occur on failing drives. I would expect that as the number of physical drives increases then the impact of double failure reduces, as does the number of 1MB blocks affected. In addition, a drive may fail only in one area rather than on the whole device, so the affected blocks could be quite small; the remainder could be perfectly readable and be quickly moved. No doubt Moshe and the team have done the maths to know what the risk is and compared it to that of standard arrays and wouldn&#8217;t be selling the product if it was not inherently more safe.</p>
<p>The only other issue I can see is what market the product will slot into; Tony mentions that the product is not for structured data (although I guess it supports it) but was designed for unstructured data of large binary file types. So, why use RAID-1 compared to say a 14+2 RAID-6 configuration which would be much cheaper in terms of the disk cost? Presumably another selling point is performance, but I would expect the target data profile (medical, large binary objects) to be more sequential than random access and not be that impacted by using SATA.</p>
<p>I guess only time will tell. I look forward to seeing how things go.</p>
<p>The other purchase announced today was that of <a href="http://www.onaro.com/" >Onaro</a> by <a href="http://www.netapp.com/" >Netapp</a>. Onaro sell SANScreen, a tool to collect and analyse fibre channel SANs and to highlight configuration issues. Whilst I think it is a good product, I don&#8217;t see the fit with Netapp&#8217;s business in the NAS market (in fact I&#8217;m sure SANScreen doesn&#8217;t currently support NAS), so where&#8217;s the benefit here other than buying up a company which must be close to or is making money.</p>
<p>I wonder who will be bought tomorrow?
<div class="blogger-post-footer">
<p>_uacct = &#8220;UA-1104321-2&#8243;;<br />
urchinTracker();
</p></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thestoragearchitect.com/2008/01/03/two-for-the-price-of-one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

