The players are lining up for the biggest acquisition game enterprise IT has witnessed in a while

Today is the (a?) day of reckoning in the 3Par saga, with Dell widely expected to make a counter-offer higher than HP’s bid. But this mega deal, like the Data Domain war before it, sends a strong signal to the enterprise IT world: It’s open season on data storage companies! But the rising superpowers are also likely looking at networking as an area of expansion. The game is afoot!

The Competitors

The simple fact is, enterprise IT prefers to buy from large, established names like HP and IBM rather than smaller and less-familiar companies with names like Ocarina, EqualLogic, or even 3Par. The acceleration of sales by enterprise providers is what makes these big acquisitions so successful and why others involving less-powerful players often fail to deliver the same results.

Full-line “superpowers” like IBM, HP and now Dell and the new Oracle can influence purchasing decisions across a broad spectrum of hardware and software. Many large organizations are tightly coupled to one of these vendors, and will give their products stronger consideration even when they are new or unfamiliar. HP is already flexing their muscle selling their broadened network lineup, and Dell found that it could do this in data storage.

Software vendors like Microsoft, Citrix, and Oracle adamantly maintained a neutral stance toward hardware, but Ellison and company seem serious about changing this. Oracle’s success in selling Sun hardware will likely dictate further software acquisitions for Dell and HP, though IBM already has strength there. Then there is Intel, the wild card who just got wilder with their acquisition of McAfee.

Companies with narrower focus like Cisco, EMC, NetApp, Juniper, and Brocade have the same power within their sphere of influence but cannot pull in wholly-distinct products. Cisco is in the midst of this fight with their technically-excellent UCS blade servers: Although they were certainly a strategic CIO-level vendor in the largest organizations, “blades from a networking company” isn’t the as easy a decision as “networking gear from a full-line company.”

The Game

Then one must consider the market in contention. The enterprise IT space is not expanding, especially in the United States. This is very close to a zero-sum game, with Oracle’s or Dell’s wins being HP’s or IBM’s losses and vice-versa. There is massive money in play, and flexibility enough for it to swing between the competitors, but growth is not unlimited.

Enterprise storage and data center and campus networking are two areas where smaller companies retain enviably-large slices of the pie, explaining the interest in these spaces among the superpowers. These verticals still have room for sales to grow without displacing a fierce full-line foe, and the superpowers have lately been weak here. Storage and networking are enticing opportunities, but each slice is similarly dominated by “vertical superpowers” and partners EMC and Cisco.

So this is the game: Four full-line enterprise superpowers battling each other for datacenter dominance and coveting the extra profits of a few verticals. HP clearly believes they can chip away at EMC and Cisco in storage and networking; Dell and IBM have so far focused mainly on storage; and Oracle hasn’t made a move in either direction, instead challenging the other three in the core server and software space.

Pawns or Knights?

So where does this leave the smaller players? Are they merely pawns in the game, waiting to be sacrificed, or are they knights who can wield power across the field? The largest (Cisco and EMC especially) appear to have ambitions of their own as well as the financial and technical strength to shake up the game. They are unlikely to be acquired by the superpowers. Brocade, too, has broad strength in storage and networking but maintains relationships across the board that make an acquisition difficult.

Strong vertical players like Juniper, NetApp, Riverbed, and Compellent are ripe for acquisition, as were Foundry, 3Com, Data Domain, and 3Par. IBM, Dell, and Oracle are all likely buyers of the networking players, though HP may consider filling in where 3Com was found lacking. All four will likely take a strong look at the remaining storage players as well, with the loser in the battle for 3Par likely to be hungry indeed.

One should also consider the potential impact of smaller acquisitions. Although they would not immediately “move the needle” for a massive superpower, there are many excellent technology companies that could be bought low and pushed strongly. The enterprise-class technology at Sepaton, Pillar Data, Xiotech, BlueArc, Extreme Networks, Force10, Blue Coat, Isilon, CommVault, FalconStor, and many others should not be overlooked. If a superpower can drive a larger acquisition to succeed, imagine what they can do with strong but inexpensive technology from one of these!

Stephen’s Stance

This game is nowhere near finished. The 3Par acquisition will not only generate revenue, it will shake up the ranking of data storage array dominance. This is very likely to kick off additional acquisition in the data storage space, spurring either Dell or HP to pick up additional technology and perhaps causing IBM or Oracle to engage as well. With no easy alternatives to 3Par, I expect Compellent, Xiotech, and Pillar to get closer looks, but Sepaton and BlueArc are just as ripe. NetApp may be too expensive at this point, but would be a nice match for Oracle’s strategy.

HP’s acquisition of 3Com could also signal a race to integrate datacenter and campus networking technology into the stack. Many are suggesting a Brocade acquisition, and it would be much cheaper than Juniper, but OEM ties make it a difficult purchase for any of the superpowers. Extreme and Force10 would be excellent and less-expensive alternatives.

We should also keep our eyes outside the superpower space. Intel showed that they can make big moves, and Microsoft might consider a diversification into hardware as well. One should also look to the East, where Huawei could try to enter the Western market with a merger or joint-venture to cast off the China stigma. Although I would love to see a rebel alliance rise (imagine Juniper, NetApp, and Symantec joining forces!) this is not a likely scenario.

Image credit: Chess Board by mosdave

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2010. | The Enterprise IT Acquisition Game
Read more posts categorized as Featured, Networking, Storage

The ongoing battle for 3Par by HP & Dell tells us much more about the state of the IT Industry than just the desires of two companies to acquire some interesting storage tech.  It signals an acceptance that storage is a key feature in the future direction of the IT industry – more important than networking and almost as important as the virtualisation platform itself.

This may seem like a bold statement to make, however we need to look forward to where the industry is headed.  First of all, vendors want us to buy their unified hardware stacks; it represents that move back to a consolidated architecture that kept one vendor dominant in the mainframe days – IBM.  “No-one gets fired for buying IBM” the saying goes (or used to go), demonstrating how IBM was seen as the data centre supplier for all things computing in the 70’s and 80’s.  Of course we know that politics within organisations and the cost of IBM hardware eventually broke the monopoly, but the status quo worked well for many companies for many years.

Now, Cisco, EMC, VMware, HP, Oracle and potentially many others want to own your data centre.  They want you bought into their computing stack.  Over time, I suspect many of those same companies want to move you to their cloud infrastructure offerings, even if they don’t offer them today.  This will be both directly and indirectly.  There will be the direct model, where the vendor offers cloud services to you under their name; there will be the indirect model where their technology powers the cloud provider, or is offered as a service.  It’s at this point the 3Par acquisition becomes much more interesting.

3Par already have many customers in the cloud services sector.  In fact they sell their hardware on the virtues of multi-tenancy, reduced cost through thin provisioning, tight integration with virtual hypervisors and so on.  In this growth sector of the industry, cost is a key driver and no end user or company will pay more than they need for storage.  This means Enterprise arrays like those from Hitachi and EMC won’t play a central role in this future, but rather storage devices which provide the highest efficiency will.  Where do all the major players stand?

• EMC have entered the market with a brand new platform – Atmos.  Although withdrawn as a direct service, Atmos continues to be available from partners.  EMC have chosen to use their own technology as the foundation for cloud.  In addition, VPLEX provides the ability to virtualise the storage layer, including federation features that fit well with VMware.
• HP have a strong blade server offering for their cloud infrastructure.  Matrix provides orchestration for the server, network and some parts of the storage layer, however this work is incomplete and doesn’t fit well with the high end XP arrays.  Slotting 3Par into the storage layer would provide a storage platform well suited to HPs unified computing infrastructure.  It means EVA can be quietly dropped and XP can be retained (in whatever future guise) for high end customers (including mainframe) and if required, gradually dropped.
• Cisco have chosen to partner with EMC rather than acquire storage technology itself.  In fact, looking and both EMC and Cisco, they need each other; EMC have no server platform, Cisco have no storage; it’s a mutually beneficial arrangement, a bit like Jack Sprat and his wife.  At this stage, Cisco could have purchased 3Par and provided and end-to-end solution, but clearly that would be a big step and would require kicking EMC to the kerb, something they obviously don’t want to do (yet).
• Hitachi have server and storage offerings, however Blade Symphony is mainly sold in domestic Japan and not widely advertised globally.  They do have the potential to provide an end-to-end offering as Hitachi also sell networking equipment.  Key for Hitachi will be credibility in a market they don’t currently play in.
• IBM should have all the components of a consolidated infrastructure but there doesn’t appear to be a lot of discussion about their offerings.  They appear to have two strategies – Dynamic Infrastructure and Cloud Computing but their offerings aren’t clear.
• Dell clearly wanted 3Par to fit into their medium to high-end storage offerings.  Today Equallogic has successfully met their SMB requirements, but they OEM technology from EMC (CLARiiON and Symmetrix) for the rest.  Acquiring 3Par would remove that dependency and allow Dell to offer end-to-end technology as their own products.
• Netapp have a self-proclaimed unified architecture that does fit well with virtualisation from VMware.  However they don’t own any other parts of the technology stack and so must partner to deliver unified offerings.  Netapp are covering all bases by offering solutions with VMware, Microsoft and Citrix, but none of these could be described as the unified stack other vendors have.
• Oracle already provide an integrated infrastructure based around their Exadata acquisitions and of course all of the Sun Microsystems technology, however I’m not sure many companies would see the Oracle offerings as other than tied directly to their database platform and not for virtualisation.

Overall, 3Par fit the requirements of HP & Dell to provide integrated technology offerings.  The move to the cloud will require leaner and efficient storage products, plus tight integration and orchestration.  It’s all about positioning today for bigger returns tomorrow.

© Chris for Gestalt IT, 2010. | 3Par Acquisition: The Future For The Storage Industry
Read more posts categorized as Featured, Server Virtualization, Storage

After years spent focusing on personal technology, businesses are increasingly turning back to the enterprise. There are many reasons for this, but the biggest one is the poor economy. Individuals simply have less free cash to spend on gadgets and software, and the meagre profits are increasingly going into the pockets of a single company: Apple.

The corporate IT market is much more dynamic and competitive, with a few very large “superpower” companies discovering their power to drive purchasing decisions. If a supplier can create an integrated “stack” of hardware and software, they can push product purchases that might otherwise be overlooked or postponed. This is the main reason that enterprise IT acquisitions work so well: Where a small company must fight to sell their product, a large one can hitch it to a much more strategic sale and have it pulled along.

The old IBM model is the prototype, with that company once selling everything from office equipment to datacenter gear as well as the consulting and integration services to make it all work.

HP has spent almost two decades bulking up to become the new IBM, buying their way into open systems laptops, desktops, and servers (Compaq), networking (3Com), services (EDS), and storage (Compaq, LeftHand, Ibrix, and perhaps 3Par). HP has been remarkably proficient at executing on this enterprise plan: In talking to enterprise IT folks, I often hear IBM-esque sentiments regarding the new HP. They tell me they’re willing to give HP the benefit of the doubt when it comes to new technologies and products, buying on basis of the company’s reputation and ability to make everything work. This bodes well for the company’s post-Hurd future, and HP has the most-complete “enterprise stack” in the business.

But HP has a target on its back, pinned there by Dell. The folks from Round Rock believe they can be more efficient (and thus profitable) than HP in the same markets, and have been making moves to fortify their enterprise offerings. Dell was always more of a manufacturing than R&D business, but they have shown a desire to broaden their focus. Intrigued by the high-margin mid-enterprise storage business built from their EqualLogic acquisition and their success selling EMC storage, Dell is moving into the enterprise. They matched HP/EDS by purchasing Perot and have made smaller buys in storage (Ocarina, Exanet) as well as the big move for 3Par.

The next big emerging stack player is Oracle. The acquisition of Sun gave Oracle a strong hardware base to complement their command of enterprise software, and many expect further acquisitions. But Oracle is playing a different game than HP and Dell, focusing on the high-margin enterprise space and ignoring more competitive outlying areas. Many suspect the company might make a play in the network space (Brocade, Juniper, and F5 have been mentioned) but storage is possible as well. CEO Larry Ellison is a major investor in Pillar Data Systems, so many expect a spin-in here. But Oracle has the appetite for something much bigger, even EMC or NetApp.

Then there is Cisco, who have attempted to parlay their data center networking strength into a broader position. But Cisco’s halting moves into storage (Fibre Channel switching and SAN extension) did not displace the market leaders, and their server products (UCS) have not made much of a dent on HP, IBM, and Dell either. A solid partnership with EMC has delayed further forays into the enterprise storage market, and Cisco seems puzzlingly interested in low-margin access businesses (Linksys, Flip) and their Cius tablet.

There are other players in the enterprise space as well. EMC has diversified under CEO Joe Tucci, taking a dominant position in server virtualization (VMware) and making a strong enterprise security acquisition (RSA). But the many faces of enterprise storage remains EMC’s strength, and they seem content to partner with Cisco for a stack sale. Hitachi, NEC, and Fujitsu also offer varying enterprise hardware and software stacks, but their comparatively small sales presence in the US market limits their ability to execute. In the final analysis, only IBM, HP, Dell, and perhaps Oracle can claim to be enterprise IT superpowers at this point.

Image credit: Steam Engine by Stuck in Customs

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Meet the Enterprise IT Superpowers
Read more posts categorized as Featured, Networking, Server Virtualization, Storage

The following post was contributed by Dwayne Lessner (@DLink7).

While going through the release notes for vSphere 4.1 I noticed one of my favourite vSphere tools be might be going away. vCenter Update Manager (VUM) 4.1 and its subsequent update releases are the last releases to support scanning and remediation of patches for Windows and Linux guest operating systems.

I think it would be a mistake not to continue on with VUM. The tool can scan and remediate both powered on and powered off virtual machines (VMs). You can easily tell from a single pane of glass which VM’s are compliant or not. With a large virtual desktop Infrastructure (VDI) environment it’s fast and easy to update your templates and linked clones. You can even automatically take a snapshot before you apply the updates in case there is a problem. This tool has shaved off hours on monthly change windows. If I had to do all this work manually I would have to hire extra staff which in today’s market is not going to happen.

Shavlik, the company behind the patch database that VUM relies on, seems to have a good working relationship with VMware. Last year when VMware announced VMware GO, a free web-based service that will allow a customers to set up ESXi, Shavilk was a major partner. It’s hard to believe they would just drop each other but I believe there is a cloud play. Shavlik will be providing cloud-based IT management and patching through their OPsCloud strategy. I believe with VMware’s Redwood around the corner the two companies will offer the proper hooks to each others infrastructure in the form of the appropriate cloud API’s.

It’s likely that the same tools will exist but in different forms and under different names. I am sure we will have another reason to spend the money on another upgrade.

© guest for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Is My Favorite vSphere Tool Going Away?
Read more posts categorized as All, Exclusive, Storage, Tech Field Day Roundtable Podcast

The 3Par acquisition is a slam dunk at under $2 billion. The company has great enterprise-grade SAN technology and a proven ability to sell into high-end accounts but lacked the revenue to go it alone. A major enterprise IT vendor like HP or Dell (not to mention Oracle, IBM, or even NetApp) will kick sales into high gear. Even with no further product development, any of those vendors can profit from this acquisition.

But there’s an amazing short-term win to be had for whoever acquires 3Par. According to IDC, the race for number two in external disk storage system sales is a bitter fight. IBM, NetApp, HP, and Dell are all within striking distance of each other, pulling in between $500 and $579 million dollars while big daddy EMC makes more than any two of them. The battle between HP and Dell in storage arrays is a dead heat, with just $6 million separating the two.

The 3Par acquisition creates a massive market-share shift!

It’s no wonder HP and Dell are fighting over 3Par! That acquisition is good for an easy $50 million in quarterly revenue, and a strong sales push could make this $60 million. This extra revenue cements the buyer ahead of his rival and makes him a challenger to IBM and NetApp. It wouldn’t be all that surprising to see the winner vault into the number 2 spot within a year.

This is a huge win for HP or Dell and a serious egg-on-the-face moment for NetApp, IBM and the loser. Sure, $1.7 billion is a lot to pay for $250 million in revenue, but the winner gets immediate bragging rights and a serious prospect of breaking free of the second-place pack. 3Par’s technology is unique in being a real tier-1 threat. This was an issue for the company as a startup, but becomes a serious asset in the hands of HP or Dell (or, dare I suggest, Oracle or NetApp). A well-executed transition and sales execution will cement HP or Dell as the most-credible competitor to EMC within a few years.

Stephen’s Stance

The 3Par acquisition makes so much sense, one wonders why it didn’t happen sooner. Dell clearly sees this as a higher-end repeat of their success with EqualLogic and gives them a chance to earn some additional enterprise credibility. An HP acquisition makes just as much sense, giving them fresh SAN technology and letting them pull ahead of Dell once again. A big deal like this also gives HP’s Dave Donatelli some internal clout in the aftermath of the Hurd fiasco. I expect a counter-offer or two before this is done, but 3Par remains attractive at even a billion more.

Will anyone else join the fray? IBM seems happy with XIV, though the market doesn’t see that product as tier-1. I expect them to stand pat. Oracle should jump in, given the souring of their Sun-era Hitachi OEM deal. Passing on 3Par leaves them with no enterprise SAN chair when the music stops, but they might not feel that they need this kind of hardware. Cisco could use the 3Par technology to reject EMC, but they might not be ready for that move. Another idea is perennial second-place storage company NetApp, who might be able to afford to play this game and could really use a new product line.

What’s left for the loser? Not much. There isn’t another startup with credible tier-1 SAN intentions. Compellent is a great alternative in the midrange SAN market, and Xiotech has great SAN technology here, too. Everyone assumes Oracle will pick up Pillar, and then there’s BlueArc and Isilon waiting in the NAS space. But none of these are a slam-dunk in terms of market share, and the value question looms large when it comes to any high-P/E acquisition. Expect more acquisitions in the coming quarters, but the 3Par game looks like a highlight.

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Everyone Loves 3Par – Here’s Why!
Read more posts categorized as Storage

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Podcast 8: Symantec Application HA, VirtualStore, and NetBackup 7
Read more posts categorized as Exclusive, Featured, Server Virtualization, Storage, Tech Field Day Roundtable Podcast

The storage industry got a lot more competitive this morning, as Dell announced plans to buy 3Par. This is the latest round in a well-established race for the enterprise storage dollar, challenging superpower (and Dell partner) EMC in the high-end SAN space. What does this acquisition say about the industry as a whole? Where are we headed?

I’ve long wished for a new enterprise storage superpower. Competition is good for everyone, and the enterprise storage space has always been highly competitive. Traditional SAN storage powers (EMC, HDS, HP, and IBM) have been under continual attack from tech-heavy upstarts like EqualLogic, LeftHand, Compellent, Xiotech, and 3Par. The smaller (revenue-wise) NAS market has been more serial, with NetApp knocking off Auspex, then challenged by EMC. Yet innovators have been thick there as well, from Exanet to Ibrix, Isilon to Onstor.

Through it all, one thing has been clear: The major companies, though perhaps lagging in technology, were usually able to withstand the attack of the upstarts through sheer strength of salesforce. Storage is a strategic investment, and selection of a storage platform is much more far-reaching than many IT product decisions. The inertia of an installed storage environment makes it a real challenge to switch vendors, giving the established players massive leverage.

It became clear to me and many others that the best way for upstart companies (and, by extension, technologies) was to be part of an established vendor’s sales process. OEM relationships were a big part of this (witness the success of BlueArc and even NetApp and HDS) but acquisition was a much stronger proposition. If customers were warmer to OEM products than independent sales, they are much hotter when it comes to acquired technology. HP, Dell, IBM, and EMC have all demonstrated the power that comes when an established company buys a startup and puts the power of their sales force behind these new products.

This explains Dell’s fantastic success with EqualLogic. They took a product that was emerging as dominant in its niche (midrange iSCSI SAN) and blasted it into the market, while at the same time optimizing manufacturing and deployment. EMC did the same with Clariion and DataDomain, and HP is showing strong signs of health with LeftHand and Ibrix. Then there is IBM, who took XIV out of Israel and made it a source of irritation to the rest of the industry.

Many industry watchers have long wondered what would happen if the smaller guys got together, forming a new superpower of their own. Would 3Par, BlueArc, and Sepaton be a real challenger? What about Xiotech or Compellent and Isilon or FalconStor? Is mixing and matching some smaller companies a recipe for success? The answer was often a counter-question: What if someone like Dell, who knows how to manufacture and sell, picked them up instead? This seemed much more like a sure-thing, since the established management and financials stave off potential integration issues.

It appears that this is the future. Established players will pick up smaller companies, fortifying their offerings and accelerating sales in a way the little guys weren’t capable of. Dell’s billion-dollar acquisition of 3Par reportedly headed off a similar offer from HP, and will likely spark another acquisition. I imagine the management teams at Compellent and Xiotech just got a lot busier…

Clearly, Dell and HP are playing this game. IBM and EMC are in it, too. But what about Cisco and Oracle? Could they be planning storage acquisitions of their own, to the detriment of partners like EMC and Hitachi? What about the strong contingent from Japan, NEC and Hitachi? And who gets picked up next? We shall see!

© Stephen Foskett for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Dell + EqualLogic, Exanet, Ocarina, 3Par = What?
Read more posts categorized as Storage

So we can thin-provision, de-dupe and compress storage; we can automate the movement of the data between tiers; now one single array may not have all these features today but pretty much every vendor has them road-mapped in some form or another. Storage Efficiency has been the watch-word and long may it continue to be so.

All of these features reduce the amount of money that we have to pay for our spinning rust; this is mostly a capital saving with a limited impact on operational expenditure. But there is more to life than money and capital expenditure; storage needs to become truly efficient through-out its life cycle; from acquisition to operation to disposal. And although some operational efficiencies have been realised, we are still some distance from a storage infrastructure that is efficient and effective throughout its life-cycle.

Storage Management software still arguably is in its infancy (although some may claim some vendor’s tools are in their dotage); the tools are very much focused at the provisioning task. Improving initial provisioning has been the focus of many of the tools and it has got much better; certainly most provision tasks are point and click operations from the GUI and with thin and wide provisioning, much of the complexity has gone away.

But provisioning is not the be all and end all of Storage Administration and Management and it is certainly only one part of the life-cycle of a storage volume.

Once a volume has been provisioned, many things can happen to it;

i) it could stay the same

ii) it could grow

iii) it could shrink

iv) it could move within the array

v)  it could change protection levels

vi) it could be decommissioned

vii) it could be replicated

viii) it could be snapped

ix) it could be cloned

x) it could be deleted

xi) it could be migrated

And it is that last one which is particularly time-consuming and generally painful; as has been pointed out a few times recently, there is no easy way to migrate a NetApp 32-bit aggregate to a 64-bit aggregate; there is currently no easy way to move from a traditional EMC LUN to a Virtual Provisioned one; and these are just examples within an array.

Seamlessly moving data between arrays with no outage to the service is currently time-consuming and hard; yes, you can do it, I’ve migrated terabytes of data between EMC and IBM arrays with no outage using volume management tools but this was when large arrays were less than 50 Tb.

We also have to consider things like moving replication configuration, snapped data, cloned data, de-duped data, compressed data; will the data rehydrate in the process of moving? Even within array families and even between code levels, I have to consider whether all the features at level X of the code are available at level Y of the code.

As arrays get bigger, I could easily find myself in a constant state of migration; we turn our noses up at arrays which are less than 100 Tb which when we are talking in estates which are several petabytes is understandable but moving 100s of Tb around to ensure that we can refresh an array is no mean feat and will be a continuous process. Pretty much once I’ve migrated the data, it’s going to be time to consider moving it again.

There are things which vendors could consider; architectural changes which might make the process easier. Designing arrays with migration and movement in mind; ensure that I don’t have to move data to upgrade code levels; perhaps consider modularising the array, so that I can upgrade the controllers without changing the disk. Data-in-place upgrades have been available even for hardware upgrades; this needs to become standard.

Ways to export the existing configuration of an array; import it onto new array, perhaps even using performance data collected from existing array to optimise layout and then replicate the existing array’s data to enable a less cumbersome migration approach. These are things which will make the job of migration more simple.

Of course, the big problem is…..these features are not really sexy and don’t sell arrays. Headline features like De-Dupe, Compression, Automated Tiering, Expensive Fast Disks; they sell arrays. But perhaps once all arrays have them, perhaps then we’ll see the tools that will really drive operational efficiencies appear.

p.s I know, very poor attempt at a Tabloid Alliterative Headline

© Martin for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Managing Migration Makes Martin Mad!
Read more posts categorized as Storage

I’ve twice posted now on Data ONTAP 8.0 shortcomings and this evening I did a little more research with the IBM version of Netapp’s hardware, the N-Series products.  Fortunately, IBM are slightly more generous and informative in their documentation than Netapp and this document (freely available online) provides more background information on the “DOT8″ transition process.  So, I’ve tried to produce a more in-depth objective view of the steps to move to “DOT8″.  Firstly the following diagram provides a clue as to how Data ONTAP has migrated to the current release.

At the point of reaching DOT8, Data ONTAP has been re-written to run off FreeBSD as the original GX code did.  This is a departure from the original Berkeley Net/2 code as documented in this post from Dave Hitz.  I have no idea how much of this version of the code was a re-write, but presumably porting over WAFL with all the bells and whistles it now has wasn’t an easy task.  This may go towards explaining why the current release of ONTAP took so long to come out.

Although the diagram shows the code base as being a single product, it isn’t.  There are still two modes, 7-mode, emulating  7G and cluster-mode emulating the GX product line.  These modes are non-interchangeable; you choose the one you want to use at system installation time and it’s fixed; no chance to change in the future.  As the IBM document explains (quote) “If a customer decides to change from one mode to another, the change is a transition rather than an upgrade (or downgrade).  Dual boot capabilities are not present, so the transition requires total reconfiguration of the storage system.  This can include backup and restore of user data”.

I think it would have been fairer to draw two parallel lines here as it appears there are still to pretty separate versions of code masquerading as a single marketing version.  So, the remainder of this discussion focuses on 7-mode.

Upgradeability

What happens if you want to take an existing system and upgrade it?  Well, depending on your hardware, you may or may not be able to perform an upgrade.  Systems such as the 6xxx models, 3×70 & 3×40 models are upgradeable, devices such as the 2050 are not.  There are also restrictions on the disk shelves that can be used too.  Should you choose to upgrade from your current 7G release, you can only move to 7-mode or build a new 8.0 installation, presumably on new hardware as you wouldn’t want to trash your existing environment.  Be aware though, that upgrade actually removes certain features.  For instance, SMB 2.0, IPv6 & IPSec are not supported.  They will reappear in a future release.  Does this mean writing these features in the ported version of WAFL was too hard or was taking too long?  Why else would you remove features from an upgrade only to replace them later?  One final upgradeability gotcha – Performance Acceleration Modules (PAM) are not supported with the initial version of 8.0.

Aggregates

As mentioned in my previous post, aggregates move to 100TB in size.  However there are many restrictions.

• Volume SnapMirror will not replicate between unlike aggregate types; so you can’t replicated to/from 32-bit to 64-bit aggregates.
• aggr copy and vol copy commands will not work between different formats.
• Flexvol size for volumes using de-duplication in 64-bit aggregates is limited to 16TB
• System root volumes can only reside on 32-bit aggregates.

On the positive side, Qtree SnapMirror and SnapVault do work between aggregate formats.

Aggregate Migration

Here’s IBM’s statement on migration of data: “Currently there is no direct migration path or conversion from 32-bit to 64-bit aggregates.  The following options can be used to migrate the data: qtree SnapMirror, SnapVault, ndmpcopy”. Each of these options also has limitations, which I don’t have time to go into, but you can read in the referenced document.

Benefits

I’ve been trying to find any benefits of upgrading to DOT8 from the customer’s perspective. For new installations, the increased aggregate size is obviously a benefit, but does come with restrictions.  There are now interface groups rather than VIFs and it appears snapshots can now be named.  Excluding these, I can’t see that DOT8 is anything more than a positioning exercise as Netapp continue to get the real features they wanted in this version into future releases.  This has been hinted at by other commentators.

Whilst I can see the benefits to Netapp of this move, I fail to see the benefit to the customer, who will have to suffer major migration headaches to realise what are small improvements from a major version upgrade.  I suspect many customers will chose to wait for 8.0.1, 8.1 or whatever version actually integrates the real improvements.  During that time, it offers more opportunities for the competition to be snapping closer to Netapp’s heels.

© Chris for Gestalt IT, 2010. | Data ONTAP 8.0 – Part III
Read more posts categorized as Featured, Storage