In a down economy, with severe belt tightening in the IT sector, some technologies actually have an advantage. And on the storage front, solid-state disk (SSD) drives may be one of them.
In a recent InfoStor QuickVote poll of our site visitors, 9.8% of the respondents said they were currently using solid-state disk (SSD) drives in enterprise storage systems (as opposed to laptops or desktops), while another 26.3% said they plan to use SSDs within the next year. However, 63.9% had no plans to use SSDs. Nevertheless, virtually every storage industry analyst puts SSDs on their list of top technologies for 2009.
Although the shipment numbers may still be low, there are signs that the enterprise SSD market is poised for takeoff this year. For example, STEC has an impressive roster of SSD design wins, including EMC, Sun and another biggie expected soon.
Long-time SSD player (30 years) Texas Memory Systems reports that sales of its RamSan line of SSDs grew 20% in 2008. And the company posted record revenues in the fourth quarter. That’s despite increased competition and the entry of heavyweights such as Intel into the SSD space.
In an article published on infostor.com, “SSDs poised for the enterprise,” Objective Analysis’ Jim Handy predicts that shipments of SSDs are expected to hit 1.7 million units in 2013, representing an average annual growth rate of nearly 150%.
Sure, SSDs are still incredibly expensive if you look at it from a cost-per-GB basis, but if you look at it from a cost-per-IOPS basis they could actually save money over buying loads of spinning disks – not to mention the energy savings. And manufacturers report that the price of materials is declining rapidly.
“We are cautiously optimistic about 2009,” says Woody Hutsell, Texas Memory’s executive vice president. “SSDs are an important part of telecommunications systems, financial exchanges, national defense systems and green IT initiatives, which are likely to benefit from government investment. SSDs can cost-effectively extend the life of existing IT infrastructure, allowing cash-strapped IT managers to postpone major purchases.”
But whether or not SSDs really take off this year will depend in large part on whether manufacturers can meet the expected price decline expectations.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Dr. Dedupe blog
In previous posts I've noted that data de-duplication will be one of the, if not the, hottest storage technologies in 2009. For a humorous (and, well, odd) look at data de-duplication, check out NetApp's Dr. Dedupe Blog.
Better yet, check it out on YouTube.
Better yet, check it out on YouTube.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
2009 VAR outlook: temporarily grim
If you want to take the economic pulse of the storage industry, look straight to the channel. That’s what Robert W. Baird & Co. does on a quarterly basis, and the firm just released results of its Q4 2008 survey of 40 enterprise resellers representing about $6 billion in annual IT spending.
The fourth quarter actually wasn’t that bad, with channel respondents split almost evenly among ‘above plan,’ ‘on plan’ and ‘below plan’ in terms of revenue. In fact, things improved in Q4 vs. the difficult Q3.
Not surprisingly, resellers expect Q1 2009 to be at or below normal seasonality, but they do see storage as a relative area of strength throughout the year. In fact, 30% of the survey respondents cited storage as the strongest area of IT spending, followed by server virtualization, which was cited by 11% of the VARs. (The weakest sectors are PCs and physical servers.)
Baird analysts summarize VARs’ performance as “lackluster,” although given the dour macro economic situation I’d say “lackluster” has become a very positive term.
Among the vendors getting the highest marks from the channel: Brocade, CommVault, Data Domain and NetApp.
And when the VARs were asked which vendors save their customers the most money, VMware topped the list, followed by Data Domain, NetApp, HP and CommVault. Rounding out the top ten were IBM, EMC, EqualLogic, Hitachi and Brocade.
The fourth quarter actually wasn’t that bad, with channel respondents split almost evenly among ‘above plan,’ ‘on plan’ and ‘below plan’ in terms of revenue. In fact, things improved in Q4 vs. the difficult Q3.
Not surprisingly, resellers expect Q1 2009 to be at or below normal seasonality, but they do see storage as a relative area of strength throughout the year. In fact, 30% of the survey respondents cited storage as the strongest area of IT spending, followed by server virtualization, which was cited by 11% of the VARs. (The weakest sectors are PCs and physical servers.)
Baird analysts summarize VARs’ performance as “lackluster,” although given the dour macro economic situation I’d say “lackluster” has become a very positive term.
Among the vendors getting the highest marks from the channel: Brocade, CommVault, Data Domain and NetApp.
And when the VARs were asked which vendors save their customers the most money, VMware topped the list, followed by Data Domain, NetApp, HP and CommVault. Rounding out the top ten were IBM, EMC, EqualLogic, Hitachi and Brocade.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Top storage technologies for 2009
It’s time to ring in the New Year with the obligatory Top Storage Technologies for 2009. I’ve culled through dozens of picks from the vendor community, and the one that comes closest to my own predictions is from HP. So, according to me and HP, here are the hottest storage trends for this year, in no particular order:
Cloud-based storage is changing how companies commoditize and store the exponential amounts of data from video sharing, digital media and social networking sites. The need to store massive amounts of data with real-time access capabilities will change the storage industry in 2009 as we see a greater uptake in cloud-based storage solutions that address the challenges of data growth, but at a fraction of the cost of traditional storage infrastructures.
Data de-duplication. By drastically increasing disk utilization (some vendors claim data de-dupe ratios of 50:1 or more, although your mileage will vary), data de-duplication reduces storage costs and improves capabilities such as disaster recovery.
Solid-state disk (SSD) drives: In a recent InfoStor QuickVote reader poll, only 6% of the respondents were currently using SSDs; another 6% planned to purchase SSDs within the next six months; 14% within the next six to 12 months; and 74% had no plans to use SSDs. However, according to HP: “Once the industry addresses the cost premium and capacity challenges of SSDs, we will be one step closer to IDC’s predicted 70% compound growth rate for SSDs by 2012.”
Virtualized storage: IT organizations are looking to virtualize their storage environments to achieve the same benefits they’ve seen from server virtualization. This is leading to “shared data” architectures that ease storage management burdens.
Secure storage: Industry and government compliance requirements, as well as the need to protect sensitive data, will put storage-level security at the forefront in 2009. More and more users will opt for encryption, including drive-level encryption, to protect data.
Energy-efficient storage: Technologies such as data de-duplication and SSDs eliminate the need for unnecessary hardware to improve performance while reducing power consumption.
Cloud-based storage is changing how companies commoditize and store the exponential amounts of data from video sharing, digital media and social networking sites. The need to store massive amounts of data with real-time access capabilities will change the storage industry in 2009 as we see a greater uptake in cloud-based storage solutions that address the challenges of data growth, but at a fraction of the cost of traditional storage infrastructures.
Data de-duplication. By drastically increasing disk utilization (some vendors claim data de-dupe ratios of 50:1 or more, although your mileage will vary), data de-duplication reduces storage costs and improves capabilities such as disaster recovery.
Solid-state disk (SSD) drives: In a recent InfoStor QuickVote reader poll, only 6% of the respondents were currently using SSDs; another 6% planned to purchase SSDs within the next six months; 14% within the next six to 12 months; and 74% had no plans to use SSDs. However, according to HP: “Once the industry addresses the cost premium and capacity challenges of SSDs, we will be one step closer to IDC’s predicted 70% compound growth rate for SSDs by 2012.”
Virtualized storage: IT organizations are looking to virtualize their storage environments to achieve the same benefits they’ve seen from server virtualization. This is leading to “shared data” architectures that ease storage management burdens.
Secure storage: Industry and government compliance requirements, as well as the need to protect sensitive data, will put storage-level security at the forefront in 2009. More and more users will opt for encryption, including drive-level encryption, to protect data.
Energy-efficient storage: Technologies such as data de-duplication and SSDs eliminate the need for unnecessary hardware to improve performance while reducing power consumption.
Monday, December 22, 2008
The 'C' in CDP has been downgraded
I’ve been doing some background research on continuous data protection (CDP) for an upcoming Special Report, and I’m starting to wonder whether the term – not the technology – will survive.
For one, we still have the “true CDP” (recovery to any point in time) vs. “near CDP” (snapshots on steroids) argument confusing things. I spoke to a number of vendors, and they all went to great lengths to explain why the distinction is irrelevant, and then they went on to explain why their approach was (or in some cases, wasn’t) true CDP.
Maybe it is meaningless. The fact is that very few companies really need true CDP. It just depends on how much granularity you need in your recovery point objective (RPO), and for many companies snapshots are more than adequate.
In addition, many vendors now offer a spectrum of recovery points, ranging from snapshots to APIT recovery: Users can choose based on their specific RPO requirements, capacity issues, cost, service level agreements (SLAs), “application-consistent” vs. “crash-consistent” requirements, the importance of the data being protected, etc.
Further, many traditional backup software vendors have integrated some level of CDP functionality into their backup suites, or at least offer it as an option. This blurs the lines between CDP and backup and, in fact, standalone CDP applications/platforms are becoming rare.
As such, it’s possible that the CDP term will eventually fade away, despite the fact that the Storage Networking Industry Association’s Data Management Forum has a special interest group dedicated to CDP.
As Fadi Albatal, FalconStor Software’s director of marketing, says, “The argument [over true CDP vs. near CDP] is irrelevant. It all depends on your SLA, RPO and RTO requirements. It’s a matter of what is acceptable risk and/or data loss.”
Or as John Ferraro, InMage Systems’ president and CEO says, “We don’t sell CDP; we focus on disaster recovery.”
For one, we still have the “true CDP” (recovery to any point in time) vs. “near CDP” (snapshots on steroids) argument confusing things. I spoke to a number of vendors, and they all went to great lengths to explain why the distinction is irrelevant, and then they went on to explain why their approach was (or in some cases, wasn’t) true CDP.
Maybe it is meaningless. The fact is that very few companies really need true CDP. It just depends on how much granularity you need in your recovery point objective (RPO), and for many companies snapshots are more than adequate.
In addition, many vendors now offer a spectrum of recovery points, ranging from snapshots to APIT recovery: Users can choose based on their specific RPO requirements, capacity issues, cost, service level agreements (SLAs), “application-consistent” vs. “crash-consistent” requirements, the importance of the data being protected, etc.
Further, many traditional backup software vendors have integrated some level of CDP functionality into their backup suites, or at least offer it as an option. This blurs the lines between CDP and backup and, in fact, standalone CDP applications/platforms are becoming rare.
As such, it’s possible that the CDP term will eventually fade away, despite the fact that the Storage Networking Industry Association’s Data Management Forum has a special interest group dedicated to CDP.
As Fadi Albatal, FalconStor Software’s director of marketing, says, “The argument [over true CDP vs. near CDP] is irrelevant. It all depends on your SLA, RPO and RTO requirements. It’s a matter of what is acceptable risk and/or data loss.”
Or as John Ferraro, InMage Systems’ president and CEO says, “We don’t sell CDP; we focus on disaster recovery.”
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Storage spending according to TIP
Amid the general doom and gloom in the IT industry, the storage segment is showing some signs of surprising resiliency. Then again . . .
On the down side, a recent storage spending survey of Fortune 1000 managers conducted by TheInfoPro research firm, shows that storage budgets will decrease 14% on average in 2009.
In addition, 68% of the companies expect to spend less in 2009 vs. 2008, with only 21% of all respondents planning to spend more than $10 million (remember, all respondents were from Fortune 1000 firms) – which is about a 10% drop from 2008.
Other key findings from the TheInfoPro survey:
--32% of the respondents spent less in 2008 compared to what was originally budgeted
--32% expect to spend the same or more in 2009 vs. 2008 – down from 81% in the 2008 vs. 2007 period.
The main culprit, of course, is the macro economic malaise, but TheInfoPro CEO (and fellow Boston College alumnus) Ken Male also notes that “Excess capacity and the procurement of low-cost tiers of storage have also contributed to the considerably lower Q4 ‘budget flush’ that we’re witnessing compared to previous years.”
On the positive side, Gartner’s Q3 2008 revenue stats for the external controller-based disk storage market (aka disk arrays) is somewhat upbeat. For example, revenue totaled $4.3 billion in the third quarter, a 10% increase over Q3 2007. However, when comparing Q2 and Q3 of 2008, worldwide revenues declined 4.5%.
For those keeping score, the leader board in the disk array market (with market shares in the third quarter) goes like this: EMC (26.1%), IBM (13%), HP (11.3%), Hitachi Data Systems (9.8%), Dell (8.9%), NetApp (8%), Sun (4.3%), Fujitsu (2.5%), and “others” (16.1%).
In another gloomy end-of-year report, investment analysts at Needham & Company lead off with this: “After a year of acting as grief counselors as much as research analysts, we welcome the arrival of a new year. The bad news is that we expect the first half of 2009 (and in particular, Q1) to see a dramatic decline in IT spending.” The Needham analysts are predicting a 2% to 3% overall increase in IT spending in 2009, noting that it will be heavily weighted toward the second half of the year.
On the down side, a recent storage spending survey of Fortune 1000 managers conducted by TheInfoPro research firm, shows that storage budgets will decrease 14% on average in 2009.
In addition, 68% of the companies expect to spend less in 2009 vs. 2008, with only 21% of all respondents planning to spend more than $10 million (remember, all respondents were from Fortune 1000 firms) – which is about a 10% drop from 2008.
Other key findings from the TheInfoPro survey:
--32% of the respondents spent less in 2008 compared to what was originally budgeted
--32% expect to spend the same or more in 2009 vs. 2008 – down from 81% in the 2008 vs. 2007 period.
The main culprit, of course, is the macro economic malaise, but TheInfoPro CEO (and fellow Boston College alumnus) Ken Male also notes that “Excess capacity and the procurement of low-cost tiers of storage have also contributed to the considerably lower Q4 ‘budget flush’ that we’re witnessing compared to previous years.”
On the positive side, Gartner’s Q3 2008 revenue stats for the external controller-based disk storage market (aka disk arrays) is somewhat upbeat. For example, revenue totaled $4.3 billion in the third quarter, a 10% increase over Q3 2007. However, when comparing Q2 and Q3 of 2008, worldwide revenues declined 4.5%.
For those keeping score, the leader board in the disk array market (with market shares in the third quarter) goes like this: EMC (26.1%), IBM (13%), HP (11.3%), Hitachi Data Systems (9.8%), Dell (8.9%), NetApp (8%), Sun (4.3%), Fujitsu (2.5%), and “others” (16.1%).
In another gloomy end-of-year report, investment analysts at Needham & Company lead off with this: “After a year of acting as grief counselors as much as research analysts, we welcome the arrival of a new year. The bad news is that we expect the first half of 2009 (and in particular, Q1) to see a dramatic decline in IT spending.” The Needham analysts are predicting a 2% to 3% overall increase in IT spending in 2009, noting that it will be heavily weighted toward the second half of the year.
Monday, December 1, 2008
2008: The Year of . . .
It’s customary to take a year-end look back at the key trends and technologies that shaped, or re-shaped, our industry. In storage, it’s usually difficult to zero down on one or two topics, but in the case of 2008 it was relatively easy.
In my view, two technologies dominated this year: virtualization and data de-duplication.
In the case of virtualization, I’m referring to server virtualization and its impact on storage, rather than storage virtualization per se (although the two are careening toward convergence). Server virtualization is arguably the hottest trend in the overall IT market, and virtually all storage vendors are hustling to take advantage of this trend by providing integration hooks and even brand new products that help end users maximize the benefits of server virtualization.
With Microsoft’s introduction of Hyper-V this year, which will ignite competition with VMware and other platforms, adoption of virtualization will continue to surge, and the storage implications – from HBAs to backup software – will take center stage for storage administrators in 2009.
But I’d have to give top honors for the dominant storage technology of 2008 to data de-duplication.
The rapid rise of data de-duplication is no surprise: From the end-user perspective, it’s a no-brainer. There aren’t any cogent arguments against reducing your capacity requirements and costs, particularly in these belt-tightening times.
But the thing I really like about data de-duplication is that it’s one of those technologies that show how end users win in the end. Data de-dupe works against the profit motive of vendors (at least the hardware vendors) because, like thin provisioning, it enables users to significantly reduce the amount of storage space they need to buy – or at least defer purchases. And let’s give credit to the early pioneers of data de-duplication, such as Data Domain, that gave users a technology that was so useful that they in turn forced the big vendors to offer a technology that in a way was not in their near-term best interests.
Here are some recent InfoStor articles on data de-duplication:
Users weigh de-dupe options
Users react to de-duplication deals
EMC refreshes data protection, de-dupe software
In my view, two technologies dominated this year: virtualization and data de-duplication.
In the case of virtualization, I’m referring to server virtualization and its impact on storage, rather than storage virtualization per se (although the two are careening toward convergence). Server virtualization is arguably the hottest trend in the overall IT market, and virtually all storage vendors are hustling to take advantage of this trend by providing integration hooks and even brand new products that help end users maximize the benefits of server virtualization.
With Microsoft’s introduction of Hyper-V this year, which will ignite competition with VMware and other platforms, adoption of virtualization will continue to surge, and the storage implications – from HBAs to backup software – will take center stage for storage administrators in 2009.
But I’d have to give top honors for the dominant storage technology of 2008 to data de-duplication.
The rapid rise of data de-duplication is no surprise: From the end-user perspective, it’s a no-brainer. There aren’t any cogent arguments against reducing your capacity requirements and costs, particularly in these belt-tightening times.
But the thing I really like about data de-duplication is that it’s one of those technologies that show how end users win in the end. Data de-dupe works against the profit motive of vendors (at least the hardware vendors) because, like thin provisioning, it enables users to significantly reduce the amount of storage space they need to buy – or at least defer purchases. And let’s give credit to the early pioneers of data de-duplication, such as Data Domain, that gave users a technology that was so useful that they in turn forced the big vendors to offer a technology that in a way was not in their near-term best interests.
Here are some recent InfoStor articles on data de-duplication:
Users weigh de-dupe options
Users react to de-duplication deals
EMC refreshes data protection, de-dupe software
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)