IDC recently released its Q3 2010 report on the storage software market, and there weren’t any changes on the leader board in terms of the top six vendors’ market shares in Q3 vs. Q2. EMC is still in the top spot with a 24.4% market share on revenue of $768 million in the third quarter.
Pure-play software vendor Symantec held on to its #2 ranking with a 16.5% share on revenue of $518 million, followed by IBM (13.4%) with revenue of $421 million and NetApp (8.4%) with $263 million.
The race is a bit tighter for fifth and sixth place, with CA (3.3%) pulling in $104 million and edging out #6 HP (3.2%, $99 million).
As was the case in the disk array market in the third quarter, the real winner appears to be NetApp, which experienced a growth rate of 19.8% in Q3 2010 vs. Q3 2009. EMC had the second highest growth rate at 13.9%. HP was the only vendor to have negative growth (-9.4%).
The overall storage software market racked up $3.1 billion in revenue, for a growth rate of 8.7% over the same quarter a year ago and a 6.3% boost over the previous quarter, according to Laura DuBois, IDC’s program vice president, storage software.
In terms of storage market segment growth, the top three were storage infrastructure (+37.3% year-over-year), archiving (+12%) and data protection and recovery (+10.7%).
DuBois notes that the big boost in storage infrastructure can be attributed largely to increased spending on automated storage tiering. Other segments of the storage software market include replication, storage management, device management, and file systems.
For more info, see IDC’s press release: “Storage Software Market Continues on Its Growth Trajectory in the Third Quarter”
Related blog post: “Disk arrays: NetApp, HP duke it out for #3 spot”
Showing posts with label capacity optimization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capacity optimization. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Top 6 storage software vendors
September 16, 2010 -- There hasn't been much change over the last year in terms of market shares for the Top 6 storage software vendors.
IDC recently released its quarterly report on the market, and EMC held on to its #1 ranking with a 24.4% market share on Q2 2010 revenue of $722 million, followed by Symantec at #2 (16.5% share, $488 in revenue), #3 IBM (13.9%, $410 million) and #4 NetApp (8.7%, $256 million).
Rounding out the Top 6 were CA and HP in a statistical tie. CA had a 3.6% market share on revenue of $108 million, and HP had a 3.3% share with revenue of $97 million. The only change in the lineup between Q2 2010 and Q2 2009 was a switch in positions between CA and HP.
In terms of revenue growth over the last 12 months, there were four gainers and two losers. Gainers included EMC (+13.3%), IBM (+10.6%), NetApp (+6%) and CA (+2%). Symantec (-6.9%) and HP (-10.3%) declined year-over-year.
Overall, the storage software market hit almost $3 billion in the second quarter, a 3.3% growth vs. the same period a year ago.
IDC segments the storage software market into eight product categories. Of those, the segments experiencing the most growth over the last year included storage infrastructure (+12.7%), archiving (+8.2%), storage management (+5.8%), and data protection and recovery (+4.9%).
For more details, see IDC's press release, "Storage Software Market Delivers Continued Growth in the Second Quarter."
Related blog post:
The Top 5 array vendors: HP #4, Dell #5
IDC recently released its quarterly report on the market, and EMC held on to its #1 ranking with a 24.4% market share on Q2 2010 revenue of $722 million, followed by Symantec at #2 (16.5% share, $488 in revenue), #3 IBM (13.9%, $410 million) and #4 NetApp (8.7%, $256 million).
Rounding out the Top 6 were CA and HP in a statistical tie. CA had a 3.6% market share on revenue of $108 million, and HP had a 3.3% share with revenue of $97 million. The only change in the lineup between Q2 2010 and Q2 2009 was a switch in positions between CA and HP.
In terms of revenue growth over the last 12 months, there were four gainers and two losers. Gainers included EMC (+13.3%), IBM (+10.6%), NetApp (+6%) and CA (+2%). Symantec (-6.9%) and HP (-10.3%) declined year-over-year.
Overall, the storage software market hit almost $3 billion in the second quarter, a 3.3% growth vs. the same period a year ago.
IDC segments the storage software market into eight product categories. Of those, the segments experiencing the most growth over the last year included storage infrastructure (+12.7%), archiving (+8.2%), storage management (+5.8%), and data protection and recovery (+4.9%).
For more details, see IDC's press release, "Storage Software Market Delivers Continued Growth in the Second Quarter."
Related blog post:
The Top 5 array vendors: HP #4, Dell #5
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The drawbacks to data reduction
July 8, 2009 – Data reduction, or capacity optimization, has succeeded in the backup/archive space (i.e., secondary storage), but applying data reduction techniques such as a deduplication and/or compression to primary storage is a horse of a different color. This is why the leading vendors in data deduplication for secondary storage (e.g., Data Domain, EMC, IBM, FalconStor, etc.) are not the same players as we find in the market for data reduction on primary storage.
A lot of articles have been written about primary storage optimization (as the Taneja Group consulting firm refers to it), but most of them focus on the advantages while ignoring the ‘gotchas’ associated with the technology. InfoStor (me, in particular) has been guilty of this (see “Consider data reduction for primary storage” ).
In that article, I focused on the advantages of data reduction for primary storage, and introduced the key players (NetApp, EMC, Ocarina, Storwize, Hifn/Exar, and greenBytes) and their different approaches to capacity optimization. But I didn’t get into the drawbacks.
In a recent blog post, Wikibon.org president and founder Dave Vellante drills into the drawbacks associated with data reduction on primary storage (which Wikibon refers to broadly as “online or primary data compression”).
Vellante divides the market into three approaches:
--“Data deduplication light” approaches such as those used by NetApp and EMC
--Host-managed data reduction (e.g., Ocarina Networks)
--In-line data compression (e.g., Storwize)
All of these approaches have the same benefits (reduced capacity and costs), but each has a few drawbacks. Recommended reading: “Pitfalls of compressing online storage.”
A lot of articles have been written about primary storage optimization (as the Taneja Group consulting firm refers to it), but most of them focus on the advantages while ignoring the ‘gotchas’ associated with the technology. InfoStor (me, in particular) has been guilty of this (see “Consider data reduction for primary storage” ).
In that article, I focused on the advantages of data reduction for primary storage, and introduced the key players (NetApp, EMC, Ocarina, Storwize, Hifn/Exar, and greenBytes) and their different approaches to capacity optimization. But I didn’t get into the drawbacks.
In a recent blog post, Wikibon.org president and founder Dave Vellante drills into the drawbacks associated with data reduction on primary storage (which Wikibon refers to broadly as “online or primary data compression”).
Vellante divides the market into three approaches:
--“Data deduplication light” approaches such as those used by NetApp and EMC
--Host-managed data reduction (e.g., Ocarina Networks)
--In-line data compression (e.g., Storwize)
All of these approaches have the same benefits (reduced capacity and costs), but each has a few drawbacks. Recommended reading: “Pitfalls of compressing online storage.”
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Data reduction redux: What's in a name?
May 7, 2009 – As mentioned in a previous post (see “Welcome to the data dedupalooza” ), I’ve been researching the topic of data reduction for primary storage for an upcoming article. One thing I’ve noticed is that the industry is playing fast and loose with the term ‘data de-duplication,’ sometimes using it in place of the more general ‘data reduction’ or ‘capacity optimization’ terms.
Maybe that was ok in the realm of secondary storage, but as you begin considering data reduction for primary storage you’ll want to be more specific about what technology a vendor uses, although all of the technologies produce the same result (to varying degrees): reduced storage capacity and costs.
In the secondary storage space, in addition to data de-duplication, some vendors use single instancing or compression or a combination of techniques. In the primary storage space, some vendors use data de-duplication, some use compression only, and some combine the two.
Again, all of these technologies have the same goal, but in the case of primary storage (and depending on the type of data sets you have), it may make a difference how a vendor is implementing data reduction. And it’s misleading to refer to any type of data reduction as ‘data de-duplication,’ despite the popularity of the term.
If you’re interested in data reduction (aka capacity optimization) to reduce your capacity requirements, delay new purchases, and slash power, cooling and space requirements, plan to attend our upcoming Webcast, titled “Leveraging Capacity Optimization to Reduce Datacenter Footprint and Storage Costs," Tuesday, May 12 at 10:00 PST, 1:00 EST. Presenters will include Noemi Greyzdorf, research manager, storage software, at IDC, and Peter Smails, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at Storwize.
The Webcast will cover data reduction for all types of storage -- including primary, nearline and secondary data – and provide tips on how to maximize the benefits of capacity optimization. To register, click here.
Maybe that was ok in the realm of secondary storage, but as you begin considering data reduction for primary storage you’ll want to be more specific about what technology a vendor uses, although all of the technologies produce the same result (to varying degrees): reduced storage capacity and costs.
In the secondary storage space, in addition to data de-duplication, some vendors use single instancing or compression or a combination of techniques. In the primary storage space, some vendors use data de-duplication, some use compression only, and some combine the two.
Again, all of these technologies have the same goal, but in the case of primary storage (and depending on the type of data sets you have), it may make a difference how a vendor is implementing data reduction. And it’s misleading to refer to any type of data reduction as ‘data de-duplication,’ despite the popularity of the term.
If you’re interested in data reduction (aka capacity optimization) to reduce your capacity requirements, delay new purchases, and slash power, cooling and space requirements, plan to attend our upcoming Webcast, titled “Leveraging Capacity Optimization to Reduce Datacenter Footprint and Storage Costs," Tuesday, May 12 at 10:00 PST, 1:00 EST. Presenters will include Noemi Greyzdorf, research manager, storage software, at IDC, and Peter Smails, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at Storwize.
The Webcast will cover data reduction for all types of storage -- including primary, nearline and secondary data – and provide tips on how to maximize the benefits of capacity optimization. To register, click here.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Welcome to the data dedupalooza
May 1, 2009 – I’ve been looking into data reduction (or capacity optimization) technologies for primary data storage recently, including data de-duplication, compression and others. Of course, compression and de-duplication are well-proven and now common on secondary storage devices such as VTLs and other backup/archiving systems.
However, despite the fact that vendors such as NetApp and Storwize have been selling (or, in the case of NetApp, giving it away for free) data reduction software tuned for primary storage for some time, end-user adoption has been relatively slow.
It looks like that’s about to change.
For one, EMC’s entry into the market with (free) data de-duplication and compression for its Celerra file servers lends legitimacy to data reduction on primary storage devices. See “EMC adds de-dupe, SSDs to NAS.”
Two, NetApp is seeing some real traction in this space. The company claims to have shipped more than 30,000 systems with its ‘NetApp deduplication’ technology. The question is how many of those customers have actually fired up the data de-duplication functionality. The answer is “at least 15,000,” according to Larry Freeman ( aka Dr. Dedupe ), senior marketing manager for storage efficiency at NetApp. And it’s probably a lot more, because the 15,000 are only the ones that NetApp can track via its autosupport feature, which not every customer uses.
Since NetApp can de-dupe across all of its storage platforms (including FAS, V-Series, and VTLs), the next question is: Of those 15,000+ systems that are actually running de-duplication, what percentage are primary systems? That one’s difficult to track, but Freeman estimates that “about 60% of those systems are de-duping at least one primary application.”
Interesting stats, but any way you slice it the entry of EMC, and the success of NetApp, in data reduction for primary storage means that this market is poised for takeoff – despite end users’ lingering concerns about performance and data availability and reliability issues which have, for the most part, been addressed by the vendors.
And a rising tide lifts all boats (maybe), which is good news for the smaller players and startups in this space, including vendors such as greenBytes, Hifn, Storwize and Ocarina Networks (which recently inked about six partnership agreements).
All of the vendors go about data reduction in very different ways, but the end goal is the same: A reduction in primary storage capacity, which results in cost savings and/or purchase deferments, as well as power, cooling and space savings. In this economic climate, who can argue with that?
More on this topic as I delve deeper, but for now . . .
The best article that InfoStor has posted on this subject is “Primary storage optimization moves forward,” by the Taneja Group’s Eric Burgener.
Also check out SNIA’s Data Management Forum’s Data De-duplication and Space Reduction Special Interest Group.
And sign up to attend an upcoming InfoStor Webcast, titled "Leveraging Capacity Optimization to Reduce Datacenter Footprint and Storage Costs," Tuesday, May 12 at 10:00 PST, 1:00 EST. Presenters will include Noemi Greyzdorf, research manager, storage software, at IDC, and Peter Smails, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at Storwize. The Webcast will cover data reduction for all types of data, including primary, nearline and secondary data. To register, click here.
However, despite the fact that vendors such as NetApp and Storwize have been selling (or, in the case of NetApp, giving it away for free) data reduction software tuned for primary storage for some time, end-user adoption has been relatively slow.
It looks like that’s about to change.
For one, EMC’s entry into the market with (free) data de-duplication and compression for its Celerra file servers lends legitimacy to data reduction on primary storage devices. See “EMC adds de-dupe, SSDs to NAS.”
Two, NetApp is seeing some real traction in this space. The company claims to have shipped more than 30,000 systems with its ‘NetApp deduplication’ technology. The question is how many of those customers have actually fired up the data de-duplication functionality. The answer is “at least 15,000,” according to Larry Freeman ( aka Dr. Dedupe ), senior marketing manager for storage efficiency at NetApp. And it’s probably a lot more, because the 15,000 are only the ones that NetApp can track via its autosupport feature, which not every customer uses.
Since NetApp can de-dupe across all of its storage platforms (including FAS, V-Series, and VTLs), the next question is: Of those 15,000+ systems that are actually running de-duplication, what percentage are primary systems? That one’s difficult to track, but Freeman estimates that “about 60% of those systems are de-duping at least one primary application.”
Interesting stats, but any way you slice it the entry of EMC, and the success of NetApp, in data reduction for primary storage means that this market is poised for takeoff – despite end users’ lingering concerns about performance and data availability and reliability issues which have, for the most part, been addressed by the vendors.
And a rising tide lifts all boats (maybe), which is good news for the smaller players and startups in this space, including vendors such as greenBytes, Hifn, Storwize and Ocarina Networks (which recently inked about six partnership agreements).
All of the vendors go about data reduction in very different ways, but the end goal is the same: A reduction in primary storage capacity, which results in cost savings and/or purchase deferments, as well as power, cooling and space savings. In this economic climate, who can argue with that?
More on this topic as I delve deeper, but for now . . .
The best article that InfoStor has posted on this subject is “Primary storage optimization moves forward,” by the Taneja Group’s Eric Burgener.
Also check out SNIA’s Data Management Forum’s Data De-duplication and Space Reduction Special Interest Group.
And sign up to attend an upcoming InfoStor Webcast, titled "Leveraging Capacity Optimization to Reduce Datacenter Footprint and Storage Costs," Tuesday, May 12 at 10:00 PST, 1:00 EST. Presenters will include Noemi Greyzdorf, research manager, storage software, at IDC, and Peter Smails, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at Storwize. The Webcast will cover data reduction for all types of data, including primary, nearline and secondary data. To register, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)