December 3, 2010 – In more good news for the rebounding storage industry, revenues from external disk systems grew 19% in Q3 2010 vs. Q3 2009, topping the $5 billion mark, according to a report from IDC. Revenues for the total (external and internal) disk systems market grew to almost $7 billion, representing an 18.5% year-over-year growth rate.
Total capacity shipped grew 65.2%.
In the external array market, EMC held on to its #1 spot by a wide margin, with $1.35 billion in Q3 revenue and a 26.1% market share. IBM was a distant second with $667 million in revenue and a 12.9% market share.
But the real race is for the #3 position, where NetApp and HP are in a virtual dead heat. (Even dead heats are virtual these days.) NetApp had an 11.6% market share in Q3, followed closely by HP with an 11.1% slice. IDC considers it to be a statistical tie when less than a one percent revenue difference separates two vendors.
Dell finished fifth, with a 9.1% market share on revenue of $471 million.
All of the top five vendors had healthy, double-digit revenue growth (ranging from 11.3% for HP to 28.3% for EMC), but it was NetApp that busted the charts with a whopping 54.9% growth rate.
Looking at the leader board trends over the past few quarters, it would seem safe to say that NetApp has blown past HP and is closing in on Big Blue, except for HP’s 3PAR acquisition. With HP’s marketing muscle behind the 3PAR product line, revenue could crank up pretty quickly. For now, however, 3PAR had a market share of only 0.83% in the third quarter. (Isilon’s slice was 0.75%.)
Other highlights from the IDC report: The NAS market was the fastest-growing segment of the overall storage systems market, posting 49.8% growth in Q3 2010 vs. Q3 2009. EMC led the NAS market with a 46.6% share, followed by NetApp with a 28.9% share.
The iSCSI segment of the overall market also did well, posting 41.4% revenue growth, with Dell/EqualLogic in the top spot (33.8% share) followed by EMC and HP in a tie for second place.
For more details, read the IDC press release: “External Disk Storage Systems Market Records Fourth-Highest Quarterly Revenue in Third Quarter”
Showing posts with label NAS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NAS. Show all posts
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
NAS gains in virtual server environments
April 1, 2010 – I’ve been tracking how users configure their storage in virtualized environments for several years, via end-user surveys, and have noticed that NAS is gaining in popularity vs. other alternatives such as Fibre Channel SANs, iSCSI SANs, and direct-attached storage (DAS).
For example, an IDC survey of 168 IT professionals conducted in the fourth quarter of last year asked users “Which of the following storage types are currently deployed with your company’s server virtualization?” The results:
NAS: 37%
FC SAN: 35%
iSCSI SAN: 29%
Virtual storage appliance: 20%
Internal DAS: 20%
External DAS: 14%
Granted, IDC only surveyed 168 companies, but that’s the first time that I’ve seen NAS top the list (although statistically it’s practically a dead heat between NAS, FC SANs and iSCSI SANs).
In comparison, a survey of infostor.com visitors, conducted a few months prior to the IDC survey, had the following results (note: The InfoStor survey asked users to choose their primary storage configuration, and did not allow multiple responses):
FC SAN: 53%
iSCSI SAN: 28%
NAS: 10%
DAS: 9%
It’s meaningless to compare the results of the two surveys, but it’s clear from the IDC survey that, rather than trying to standardize on a single architecture for their virtual server storage environments, end users are moving toward a mix of two or more architectures.
I suppose that NAS’ strong showing is attributable in part to the rapid growth of unstructured file data in virtualized environments, as well as improvements in the latest versions of NFS. And, of course, to its relatively low cost, which has given NAS a boost not only in virtual server environments but across the board during the financial downturn. Also, the increasing use of “hybrid” or “unified” storage systems (i.e., NAS + SAN) may also be jacking up the percentages for NAS.
For more on the expanding applications for NAS, see “Evolving use cases for file-based storage,” by IDC analyst Noemi Greyzdorf.
For example, an IDC survey of 168 IT professionals conducted in the fourth quarter of last year asked users “Which of the following storage types are currently deployed with your company’s server virtualization?” The results:
NAS: 37%
FC SAN: 35%
iSCSI SAN: 29%
Virtual storage appliance: 20%
Internal DAS: 20%
External DAS: 14%
Granted, IDC only surveyed 168 companies, but that’s the first time that I’ve seen NAS top the list (although statistically it’s practically a dead heat between NAS, FC SANs and iSCSI SANs).
In comparison, a survey of infostor.com visitors, conducted a few months prior to the IDC survey, had the following results (note: The InfoStor survey asked users to choose their primary storage configuration, and did not allow multiple responses):
FC SAN: 53%
iSCSI SAN: 28%
NAS: 10%
DAS: 9%
It’s meaningless to compare the results of the two surveys, but it’s clear from the IDC survey that, rather than trying to standardize on a single architecture for their virtual server storage environments, end users are moving toward a mix of two or more architectures.
I suppose that NAS’ strong showing is attributable in part to the rapid growth of unstructured file data in virtualized environments, as well as improvements in the latest versions of NFS. And, of course, to its relatively low cost, which has given NAS a boost not only in virtual server environments but across the board during the financial downturn. Also, the increasing use of “hybrid” or “unified” storage systems (i.e., NAS + SAN) may also be jacking up the percentages for NAS.
For more on the expanding applications for NAS, see “Evolving use cases for file-based storage,” by IDC analyst Noemi Greyzdorf.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Virtual server SANs: FC vs. iSCSI vs. NAS
February 8, 2010 – In the beginning, most virtual server environments relied on either Fibre Channel SANs or direct-attached storage (DAS). As the virtual environments grew, end users quickly found out that DAS wasn’t going to cut it. Fibre Channel remained king for awhile (and still is), but iSCSI – and NAS – appear to be coming on strong.
In mid-2009, we polled infostor.com visitors regarding what type of storage network protocol they were using in their virtual server environments:
The question: “If you have virtual servers, what is your primary storage configuration? (check one)”
The results: 53% cited Fibre Channel SAN; 28% iSCSI SAN; 10% NAS; and 9% DAS.
A recent report from Forrester Consulting, based on a survey commissioned by Dell (no doubt the EqualLogic crew), suggests that iSCSI – as well as NAS -- is narrowing the gap with Fibre Channel. Forrester surveyed 200 IT storage decision-makers.
The question: “What storage network protocol(s) are you using (or plan to use) for your virtual server environment? (select all that apply)”
The results: 59% Fibre Channel, 57% iSCSI, and 52% NFS [NAS]. Almost a dead heat. (3% of the respondents are using non-networked storage; e.g., DAS.)
In addition to the impressive showing of both iSCSI and NAS, a key conclusion here is that end users are obviously using a mix of storage protocols in their virtual server environments.
There was, however, one seeming inexplicable anomaly in the results to that Forrester survey question: 33% cited FCoE. I’m at a loss to explain that, but here’s the explanation from the report’s authors:
“FCoE interest appears very high. There may well be some confusion regarding the adoption of FCoE, as anecdotal evidence suggests that the 34% current usage number [referring to another question] is very high for this emerging protocol. Products are just now coming onto the market and are usable only for the server side of storage networking, aggregating traffic in top-of-rack and edge switches. The reality here is likely that respondents have interest in or plans to move forward with FCoE, but have not yet implemented FCoE in such high numbers.
Confusion with FCIP, used to carry FC traffic over the WAN for distance replication, may also be increasing the adoption rates reported in this survey.
Another area of confusion relates to the adoption of 10GbE. Respondents who stated that they currently have FCoE in place in the quantitative survey revealed in interviews that they actually have 10GbE for file data traffic but are not using FCoE equipment. Suffice it to say that interest in FCoE is high at this point, but confusion about what really constitutes FCoE is clouding the adoption picture.”
Back to Fibre Channel, iSCSI and NAS: Not surprisingly, use of these protocols in virtual server environments varies by the size of the organization. For example, 70% of large enterprises (1,000 or more employees) cited Fibre Channel, compared to 50% of the SMBs.
66% of the SMBs cited iSCSI, compared to 47% of the large enterprises. And 49% of the SMBs cited NFS, compared to 57% of large enterprises.
The full report is posted on Dell’s site: “Benefits Of SAN/LAN Convergence: Evaluating Interest In And Readiness For Unified Fabric,” is posted on Dell’s site.
If you’re struggling with the storage challenges associated with rapidly growing virtual server environments, consider attending our Webcast, “Managing VM Sprawl and Reducing Costs with Disk Archiving,” tomorrow (Tuesday), February 9 at 10:00 PST, 1:00 EST.
You can get a description of the Webcast and register HERE.
In mid-2009, we polled infostor.com visitors regarding what type of storage network protocol they were using in their virtual server environments:
The question: “If you have virtual servers, what is your primary storage configuration? (check one)”
The results: 53% cited Fibre Channel SAN; 28% iSCSI SAN; 10% NAS; and 9% DAS.
A recent report from Forrester Consulting, based on a survey commissioned by Dell (no doubt the EqualLogic crew), suggests that iSCSI – as well as NAS -- is narrowing the gap with Fibre Channel. Forrester surveyed 200 IT storage decision-makers.
The question: “What storage network protocol(s) are you using (or plan to use) for your virtual server environment? (select all that apply)”
The results: 59% Fibre Channel, 57% iSCSI, and 52% NFS [NAS]. Almost a dead heat. (3% of the respondents are using non-networked storage; e.g., DAS.)
In addition to the impressive showing of both iSCSI and NAS, a key conclusion here is that end users are obviously using a mix of storage protocols in their virtual server environments.
There was, however, one seeming inexplicable anomaly in the results to that Forrester survey question: 33% cited FCoE. I’m at a loss to explain that, but here’s the explanation from the report’s authors:
“FCoE interest appears very high. There may well be some confusion regarding the adoption of FCoE, as anecdotal evidence suggests that the 34% current usage number [referring to another question] is very high for this emerging protocol. Products are just now coming onto the market and are usable only for the server side of storage networking, aggregating traffic in top-of-rack and edge switches. The reality here is likely that respondents have interest in or plans to move forward with FCoE, but have not yet implemented FCoE in such high numbers.
Confusion with FCIP, used to carry FC traffic over the WAN for distance replication, may also be increasing the adoption rates reported in this survey.
Another area of confusion relates to the adoption of 10GbE. Respondents who stated that they currently have FCoE in place in the quantitative survey revealed in interviews that they actually have 10GbE for file data traffic but are not using FCoE equipment. Suffice it to say that interest in FCoE is high at this point, but confusion about what really constitutes FCoE is clouding the adoption picture.”
Back to Fibre Channel, iSCSI and NAS: Not surprisingly, use of these protocols in virtual server environments varies by the size of the organization. For example, 70% of large enterprises (1,000 or more employees) cited Fibre Channel, compared to 50% of the SMBs.
66% of the SMBs cited iSCSI, compared to 47% of the large enterprises. And 49% of the SMBs cited NFS, compared to 57% of large enterprises.
The full report is posted on Dell’s site: “Benefits Of SAN/LAN Convergence: Evaluating Interest In And Readiness For Unified Fabric,” is posted on Dell’s site.
If you’re struggling with the storage challenges associated with rapidly growing virtual server environments, consider attending our Webcast, “Managing VM Sprawl and Reducing Costs with Disk Archiving,” tomorrow (Tuesday), February 9 at 10:00 PST, 1:00 EST.
You can get a description of the Webcast and register HERE.
Monday, October 5, 2009
iSCSI + NAS for virtual servers?
October 8, 2009 – When end users first started the mass migration to virtual servers, the majority did so with direct-attached storage (DAS) as the underlying storage architecture. They quickly found out that virtualization required networked storage, and the incumbent SAN protocol – Fibre Channel – became the front runner in the race toward dominance in server virtualization storage architectures.
Fibre Channel SANs are still the dominant storage architectures in virtual operating environments, but iSCSI – and also NAS – are coming on strong.
In an infostor.com QuickVote poll (conducted last year), we asked virtual server users what their primary storage configuration was. More than half (53%) cited Fibre Channel SANs, 28% were relying primarily on iSCSI, 10% on NAS, and only 9% on DAS. Since then, I’m sure the percentages for iSCSI and NAS have shifted upward.
That survey didn’t ask whether users were combining different storage architectures to support their burgeoning virtual server implementations. However, combining SANs and NAS appears to be a strong trend.
In an end-user survey, Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) posed the following question:
Does your organization have plans to consolidate NAS and SAN storage resources into a unified storage architecture that supports both file-based NAS and block-based SAN storage?
With the caveat that the question was not posed in a virtual server context, it’s interesting to note that well over half of the respondents (67%) planned to pursue a “unified storage” (SAN+NAS) strategy. In fact, 18% were already underway – and the ESG survey was conducted late last year.
Among those that are moving to unified storage architectures, 41% plan to rely primarily on NAS gateways to front-end SANs; 18% plan to rely primarily on unified NAS-SAN storage systems; and 40% plan to use both approaches.
If you’re among the growing group of users that are deploying iSCSI + NAS architectures – particularly if you have virtual servers – check out our Webcast, “Unified Storage for Virtual Servers: iSCSI SANs and NAS.” If you missed the "live" version earlier this week, you can view the archived version here.
ESG analyst Terri McClure presents interesting data from ESG’s end-user surveys and discusses trends in the context of unified storage and virtual servers. And John McArthur, president and co-founder of Walden Technology Partners, discusses solutions that enable you to combine iSCSI SANs and NAS to optimize efficiencies in virtual server environments – at a low cost and with minimal management overhead.
Choosing the right storage architecture for your virtual server environment is not an either-or decision.
Fibre Channel SANs are still the dominant storage architectures in virtual operating environments, but iSCSI – and also NAS – are coming on strong.
In an infostor.com QuickVote poll (conducted last year), we asked virtual server users what their primary storage configuration was. More than half (53%) cited Fibre Channel SANs, 28% were relying primarily on iSCSI, 10% on NAS, and only 9% on DAS. Since then, I’m sure the percentages for iSCSI and NAS have shifted upward.
That survey didn’t ask whether users were combining different storage architectures to support their burgeoning virtual server implementations. However, combining SANs and NAS appears to be a strong trend.
In an end-user survey, Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) posed the following question:
Does your organization have plans to consolidate NAS and SAN storage resources into a unified storage architecture that supports both file-based NAS and block-based SAN storage?
With the caveat that the question was not posed in a virtual server context, it’s interesting to note that well over half of the respondents (67%) planned to pursue a “unified storage” (SAN+NAS) strategy. In fact, 18% were already underway – and the ESG survey was conducted late last year.
Among those that are moving to unified storage architectures, 41% plan to rely primarily on NAS gateways to front-end SANs; 18% plan to rely primarily on unified NAS-SAN storage systems; and 40% plan to use both approaches.
If you’re among the growing group of users that are deploying iSCSI + NAS architectures – particularly if you have virtual servers – check out our Webcast, “Unified Storage for Virtual Servers: iSCSI SANs and NAS.” If you missed the "live" version earlier this week, you can view the archived version here.
ESG analyst Terri McClure presents interesting data from ESG’s end-user surveys and discusses trends in the context of unified storage and virtual servers. And John McArthur, president and co-founder of Walden Technology Partners, discusses solutions that enable you to combine iSCSI SANs and NAS to optimize efficiencies in virtual server environments – at a low cost and with minimal management overhead.
Choosing the right storage architecture for your virtual server environment is not an either-or decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)