compaq storageworks vs. the competition kevin farley competitive response team it3 february 22, 2001...
TRANSCRIPT
Compaq StorageWorksvs.
The CompetitionKevin Farley
Competitive Response Team
IT3 February 22, 2001
February, 2001
Agenda Introduction
– Mission Statement– Delivery Methodology– Additional Resources
Vendor Overviews (Sun, HP, HDS, IBM, Dell, EMC)– Storage Strategy– Product Lines– Competitive Positioning– Strengths/Weaknesses– Attack Points– Why StorageWorks
Mission Statement
To develop and deliver best-in-class tactical competitive analysis, tools and support to Compaq’s partners and field sales organizations, ESG product marketing and ISSG in a timely manner.
Primary Coverage:
EMC - Sal Capizzi, George Lester IBM - George Lester Sun - Kevin Farley HDS - George Lester Dell - Sal Capizzi HP - Kevin Farley Xiotech - Kevin Farley
Secondary Coverage
Network Appliance - Sal Capizzi, Kevin Farley MTI - Sal Capizzi STK - Sal Capizzi Veritas, Tivoli - Competitive Team SAN market - Competitive Team Management software - Competitive Team Storage Utility – Competitive Team
Contact Information
Sal Capizzi - 508-841-2602– [email protected]
George Lester - 508-841-2064– [email protected]
Kevin Farley - 508-841-2882– [email protected]
FAX: 508-841-6183
Remember
“…Be the Ball”? – Be The Customer – Address His Concerns
Sell High Sell the Solution – not the box Document and Communicate
Compaq Storage Vs EMC
At-A-Glance
February, 2001
EMC Approach with Customers
Sells value of its storage solutions– Reality: justifying the high price
Pitches business value to CIO level– Reality: avoiding the hardware sell at the user
level Provides complete service and support as a
standard offering– Reality: does not want customers to have the
option of supporting complex Symmetrix storage systems
EMC Claims
EMC is the largest storage company Compaq as a company is not focused on
selling storage Superior SANs - Gartner Group rates EMC
highest in SAN magic quadrant EMC understands Windows/NT better than
Compaq EMC Hardware is superior to StorageWorks EMC Software is superior to SANworks
What EMC Says About Compaq Compaq is not an enterprise storage vendor due
to lack of mainframe support - Enterprise is not defined as mainframe and Compaq has relationship with ENT
Compaq is a PC Vendor - IDC shows Compaq as #1 storage vendor with 20% market share of multi-user storage
Compaq has limited experience in disaster tolerance and business critical environments; says SANWorks is immature - Although DRM, SWVR, and EVM have not shipped as long as SRDF and TimeFinder, they have been extremely successful.
Compaq doesn’t offer FC Drives - FC Drives do nothing to add performance; only CLARiiON offers FC drives, not Symmmetrix
EMC Storage Strategy Strategy is focused on high-end and high priced
mainframe monolithic architectural approach Software is used as a differentiator and required to
justify the high price Historically based upon proprietary Symmetrix
design, however EMC is pursuing company buyouts such as Data General, Conley Software, McDATA, Softworks
CLARiiON is positioned as the low cost alternative to Symmetrix when Symmetrix software is not required
EMC Storage Products - SymmetrixSymmetrix 8000 Family
Replaces 3xxx & 5xxx Families
Symmetrix 8430 (-18, -36, -50)– 18GB, 36GB, 50GB Disk Drives– 8 to 96 Drives– Entry price - $425,000
Symmetrix 8730 (-18,-36,-50)– 18GB, 36GB, 50GB Disk Drives– 32 to 384 Drives– Entry price - $650,000
Positioning vs EMC Symmetrix
Symmetrix 8430
Symmetrix 8730
RA, MA8000
ESA, EMA 12000
ESA, EMA 12000
Compaq SAN
EMC and CLARiiON EMC product strategy focused on Symmetrix
– Symmetrix is still the strategic product for EMC All product development is targeted towards exploiting Symmetrix.
EMC leads with high priced Symmetrix; when too high CLARiiON comes in as last resort
CLARiiON announced snapshot and remote copy in January 2001, but still lags in comparison to SANworks
No SAN based backup and restore CLARiiON Fibre Channel disks offer no performance
advantage over UltraSCSI disks
Positioning vs EMC CLARiiON
CLARiiON 4500, 4700
CLARiiON 5200/5300*, 4700
CLARiiON 5600/5700*
RA4100, MA6000, RA/MA 8000
RA/MA 8000 plus software
RA/MA 8000 plus software
ESA/EMA 12000 plus software
* - End-of_Life
EMC Strengths/Weaknesses Reputation as mainframe storage provider Financial success Software such as TimeFinder and SRDF Aggressive sales force that sells high Multivendor connectivity including mainframe
Aging proprietary monolithic mainframe architecture Limited NT market share and mind share Two different storage architectures with Symmetrix and CLARiiON Entry price high as well as overall prices Performance just average in open systems environments Only sells storage
+
_
Compaq vs. EMC “A Quick Look”
Phone home support Yes Yes Mixed Unix/Windows support Yes Yes Many servers to one storage device Yes Yes Serverless data replication SDRF DRM Business continuance volumes TimeFinder EVM SAN volume masking VolumeLogix SSP SAN path failover PowerPath Secure Path Dynamic load balancing PowerPath Secure Path Virtual snapshots TimeFinder EVM Storage resource management No SRM Storage allocation reporting No SAR SAN management appliance No Yes SAN-wide virtualization strategy No VersaStore SAN-based backup No EBS
EMCEMC StorageWorksStorageWorks+ SANworks+ SANworks
StorageWorks Attack Points Vs EMC EMC architecture is mainframe oriented -
EMC has it’s roots in the mainframe storage market and is moving the mainframe architecture of Symmetrix to open systems environments.
EMC Symmetrix offering is proprietary - EMC will not even allow customers to maintain Symmetrix storage. All changes and upgrades require EMC support personnel.
EMC product strategy focused on Symmetrix - Even with the acquisition of CLARiiON, Symmetrix is still the strategic product for EMC Most product development is targeted towards exploiting Symmetrix.
EMC is storage only company - The AViiON server group is a separate division that EMC uses as another channel to sell storage.
StorageWorks Attack Points Vs EMC Symmetrix not geared to UNIX or NT - Symmetrix
large cache mainframe architecture is not a good fit in distributed open systems environments. EMC acquired DG CLARiiON to get UNIX and NT products.
Separate and incompatible product lines - Symmetrix and CLARiiON are totally different products and architectures. There is no upgradability between the two architectures.
CLARiiON has limited SAN software - Compaq SANWorks software such as DRM, SWVR, and EVM lead CLARiiON for disaster tolerance and business continuance solutions for open systems.
EMC will not drive SANs - SANs are in conflict with EMC monolithic large cache architecture. EMC SAN implementation is viewed as proprietary. In addition, industry analysts believe that only server vendors have the necessary influence with customers and application vendors to drive SAN implementations.
Compaq offers better price - Compaq offers customers a better, more cost effective business solution. For example, a typical Symmetrix configuration has an entry price of $420,000+ and offers only average performance in Open Systems environments.
Compaq offers better performance - The mainframe centric large cache design of Symmetrix does not perform as well as StorageWorks in distributed Open Systems environments.
Compaq has stronger SAN position - Compaq has been offering SAN solutions since 1998. EMC has just recently began to formulate an open SAN strategy. A Compaq SAN provides value via a modular, scalable storage architecture versus EMC monolithic mainframe focused design.
StorageWorks Attack Points Vs EMC
Why StorageWorks Vs EMC? SANs are an inflection point in the storage market Modular architecture more conducive to take
advantage of SANs Hardware product feature/functions have moved to
parity And who better connects to your business than
Compaq Provides business value for the customer Today's SAN market is an integration and test market
and that’s what Compaq does best
Why StorageWorks vs EMC? Very cost competitive Overall better performance in distributed
environments Compaq can provide total solution Large global services organization More flexible support structure Better NT integration and support Open SAN strategy
How to attack EMC Find a way to get into the account on a new
project Get to know the customer Make proposals that replace EMC boxes non-
disruptively Chip away at the installed base as the EMC units
reach their end-of-life or warranty - i.e. when the customer must make a decision
John Webster, Illuminata, Inc.
Compaq Storage Vs Sun Microsystems
At-A-Glance
February, 2001
Sun Storage Strategy
Sun’s CEO Scott McNealy - “We will win on storage, storage is not an industry, it’s a feature of the server.”
Sun’s Enterprise Storage Strategy is clearly a very aggressive capitalization of Sun’s server strategy
– Resulted in a fragmented set of storage products
– Inferior products = Dissatisfied Customers Fundamental component is Solaris and servers for
host-based functionality Storage is an afterthought
Sun Storage Products StorEdge A1000/D1000
– Entry level UltraSCSI (host and disk) storage– A1000 supports single storage RAID controller– D1000 - JBOD with host-based SW RAID– Based on 3 generation old LSI/Symbios
technology StorEdge A3500 and A3500FC
– UltraSCSI or FC host interface– Supports 56 UltraSCSI drives in single cabinet– Supports Solaris and NT– Based on old 486DX4 controller technology
CANNOT BE UPGRADED!
Sun Storage Products
StorEdge A5100/5200– Host-based software RAID with FC host and disk
interface– A5100 supports 14x18.2 GB 7.2K rpm drives – A5200 supports 22x9.1GB 10k rpm drives– Support Solaris and NT– Based on Sun Proprietary Technology
Sun - What they don’t say
StorEdge A5100/5200– 2nd Tier Corporate attention and resources – weak
support, service– Last upgrade Jan, 1999– Depends on host-based servers for management – Industry reputation for poor reliability– Not certified for V3 Sun Cluster Software– Overhead causes servers perf. penalty– Supports only Solaris and NT– Based on Sun Proprietary Technology
Sun Storage Products StorEdge T3 “Purple” - Announced 6-14-2000
– Modular design, SBus/FC-AL host connectivity– 9 disks per drawer, 8 drawers per rack (72 disk
total per cabinet)– Single Controller per drawer– 18GB, 36GB 73GB FC drives– 5.2TB capacity per rack - Max 168TB– Only Solaris support; NT in Q1’01– Based on MaxStrat Technology
Sun Storage Products StorEdge T3 “Purple”
– Flagship product (based on MaxStrat acquisition)– Modular design, Sbus/FC-AL host connectivity– 9 disks per drawer, 8 drawers per rack (72 disk
total per cabinet)– Single Controller per drawer– 18GB, 36GB, 73GB FC drives– 5.2TB capacity per rack - Max 168TB– Only Sun Cluster support
Sun - What they don’t say StorEdge T3 “Purple”
– Redundant controllers aren’t ready - don’t work– Limited clustering support (only V2.2 from Sun)– LUNS/RAID limited to single shelf– Every 9 disks needs an additional controller!– Every shelf needs individual LUN management– Field Service will learn “on your nickle”– Dependent on server availability to access data -
U10K has technical flaws– Not certified by Sun for new V3 Sun Cluster Software– Installation/wiring nightmare
Compaq vs. Sun “A Quick Look”
Phone home support No Yes Mixed Unix/Windows support No Yes Many servers to one storage device Yes Yes Serverless data replication No DRM Business continuance volumes Instant Image EVM SAN volume masking Limited SSP SAN path failover No Secure Path Dynamic load balancing Limited Secure Path Virtual snapshots Instant Image EVM Storage resource management No SRM Storage allocation reporting No SAR Host-independent SAN management No Yes Open SAN initiatives/commitment No Yes SAN-based backup No EBS
SUNSUN StorageWorksStorageWorks+ SANworks+ SANworks
Positioning vs Sun
StorEdge A1000/D1000
StorEdge A3500/A3500FC, T3 “Purple”
StorEdge A5100/5200, T3 “Purple”
StorEdge T3 “Purple”
RA3000/RA4200 MA8000
MA6000, MA8000 ESA12000
MA6000, MA8000
RA4200, MA6000, MA8000, EMA12000
Sun Strengths/Weaknesses
UNIX server success Storage capture rate on Sun servers at initial sale Message as standards leader, Jiro and Java
Limited multivendor platform support Multiple storage architectures, i.e., MAXSTRAT,
LSI/Symbios as well as SUN proprietary Limited knowledge for support of NT, no other UNIX Lack of penetration into large IT shops Current products going EOL soon
+
_
Why StorageWorks vs Sun Complete SAN vision, roadmap and products with
emphasis on providing customer business value StorageWorks support for major UNIX system
platforms Significant investment in support of NT platforms
as well as a strategic relationship with Microsoft StorageWorks provides a single, modular
architecture that scales linearly, thus providing customers investment protection
History of delivering products as promised Industry Analysts place Compaq as the Industry
Leader with a complete vision and product suite
Business Concerns with Sun Investment Protection? - Sun effectively EOL’d their
existing products when T3 “Purple” was announced. (Sun offers 3 different architectures.)
Business Risk? - “Purple” has technical and reliability issues. Does the customer want to “field de-bug” a new, unproven product while maintaining their critical business operations?
Performance? - Sun servers handle storage functions and consume CPU cycles (est. 20%+ perf. penalty) instead of offloading mundane tasks to intelligent controllers. Customers pay more and get less.
Business Concerns with Sun Accessing Data? – Servers control the data. A
server crash = no data access unless clustered
Software? - Sun Servers & Solaris are usually a prerequisite. Off-platform hardware is not supported.
Reliability? – Sun is paying eBay $10M per year not to be thrown out of the account.
(Source: Enabling Technologies Group, Atlanta, GA)
PaineWebber survey (Feb., 2000) reported “near 50%” dissatisfaction with Sun storage.
Attack Points Against Sun
Sun will stress Sun-on-Sun, direct attach with Solaris control, preventing Customers from operating in an Open, mixed platform environment. Compaq offers vendor-neutral, universal connectivity.
Through the VersaStor alliance, IBM and Compaq are driving open management standards. Sun is Solaris centric.
Compaq offers global support through one (1) organization. Sun depends on 250+ independent organizations.
Compaq Storage Vs Hewlett-Packard
At-A-Glance
October, 2000
HP Storage Strategy
Historical support primarily for HP servers but moving towards multivendor support with “open” and “choice” as key messages
Mixed Enterprise Storage products based on HP and OEM Lines
Messages stressing software as major differentiator
Capacity-on-Demand (iCOD) to gain account control
“Stress-Free Storage” messages imply Customer satisfaction
HP - SureStore E Product Family
NetServer Storage– Supports HP NetServers (NT centric)
SureStore E Disk Array 12H (was AutoRAID 12H)– Supports HP-UX and NT
SureStore E SC10– UltraSCSI host and disk interface– HP-UX only
SureStore E FC10 (formerly FC 1010D)– FC host and disk interface– HP-UX with future NT support
SureStore E FC60– Based on LSI/Symbios - FC host interface– HP-UX and NT
SureStore E XP48– Mid range version of XP 512 (48 disk capacity)
SureStore E XP256 (formerly MC256)– Based on HDS 7700E– 9TB capacity - uses non-standard HDS drives– Replaces EMC Symmetrix
SureStore E XP 512– Based on HDS 9900E– Supports 512 disks - 24TB capacity– New crossbar bus technology
HP - SureStore E Product Family
Positioning vs HP NetServer System/6
NetServer Rack Storage/12 NetServer Rack/12FC
SureStore E Disk Array 12H
SureStore E SC10 SureStore E FC60 SureStore E XP48
SureStore E XP256, XP512
RA3000, RA4x00, MA6000, MA8000
RA3000, RA4x00,MA6000, MA8000
MA6000, MA8000
MA8000 EMA 12000 Compaq SAN
HP Strengths/Weaknesses
Sells storage with HP servers Suite of SureStore storage management products Good storage technology, i.e AutoRAID
Focus on installed base - particularly vs EMC Has tried their own, CLARiiON and EMC... and now
HDS and LSI storage products Limited multi-platform support - primarily HP-UX High Turnover, Inexperienced Management Team
+
_
Why StorageWorks Vs HP
StorageWorks provides a single multi-vendor storage architecture including HP-UX support
HP has no clear Enterprise Storage Strategy unlike Compaq ENSA
HP XP 256, XP512 is a mainframe-centric, monolithic architecture like EMC
Analysts rate Compaq’s SAN Strategy as Superior to HP
Attack Points against HP
Too Many Different Architectures - Which is best? HP’s technology? LSI/Symbios? Hitachi? What about installed CLARiiON? How many rooms of spare parts does the Customer need?
Limited Multi-Platform Knowledge/Experience - HP sells primary to HP-UX accounts with some NT. What if the customer has Solaris or AIX or Tru64 or OpenVMS?
Risk of HP (again) Switching to Another Company - in early’99, HP re-signed with EMC for 3yrs, terminated in June, signed with HDS for 3yrs.
Significantly More Expensive - Across product groups, in similar configurations HP is generally 30% - 80% more expensive than Compaq.
Compaq Storage Vs Hitachi Data Systems (HDS)
At-A-Glance
February, 2001
HDS Storage Strategy
Combine hardware, software and services for total solutions
Build alliances and relationships to provide “one-stop-shopping”
Stress continuous uptime and fault-tolerant solutions
Provide an “Open” SAN Architecture allowing customers to select any storage product from any vendor.
HDS Storage Products Freedom 9200 Series
– Announced January, 2001– 7.2TB capacity– All Fibre Architecture
Freedom 7700E– 11TB Max. Capacity– HP reselling as HP XP256
Freedom Lighting 9900– Model 9960 - 24TB Max. Capacity– HP reselling as HP XP512
Compaq vs. HDS “A Quick Look”
Phone home support Yes Yes Mixed UNIX/Windows support Yes Yes Many servers to one storage device Yes Yes Serverless data replication Remote Copy DRM Business continuance volumes ShadowImage EVM SAN LUN masking LUN Manager SSP SAN path failover Path Manager Secure Path Dynamic load balancing Path Manager Secure Path Virtual snapshots ShadowImage EVM SAN Storage resource management No SRM Storage allocation reporting No SAR SAN management appliance No Yes SAN-wide virtualization strategy No VersaStore SAN-based backup No EBS
HDSHDS StorageWorksStorageWorks+ SANworks+ SANworks
Positioning vs HDS
HDS 9200
HDS 7700E
HDS 9960
MA6000 & MA8000, EMA12000
MA8000 &
EMA12000
EMA12000
Compaq SAN
HDS Strengths/Weaknesses Recognition in large IT shops IBM mainframe connectivity Reputation for highly available, high performance
array products
Mainframe niche is primary market Limited resources due to company size Dependent upon parent Hitachi to fund
development Lacks a large global services organization. Total
employee population approximately 2,300
+
_
StorageWorks Attack Points Vs HDS
HDS has limited resources - HDS has less than 2,300 total employees and is rumored to be under pressure from Hitachi Ltd. to either get healthy and profitable or get lost. They are seriously lacking in engineering, sales and service resources.
HDS leads technology versus solutions - In order to claim performance leadership HDS has introduced a switch architecture controller that is totally new and unproven. They claim high performance based upon I/O specifications, but have not provided any real world benchmark or performance data.
HDS employs proprietary technology - For example, they use proprietary Hitachi disk drives and PowerPC CPUs in their HDS 7700 and HDS 9900 subsystems
Compaq has stronger SAN position - Compaq has been offering SAN solutions since 1998. HDS lacks SAN management capability. According to Evaluator Group they have not delivered a common storage management capability and they lack a real plan, roadmap or timeline for achieving their SAN management goals.
Compaq offers better performance - The mainframe centric large cache designs of the HDS 7700E and HDS 9900 may not perform as well as StorageWorks in distributed Open Systems environments.
Compaq offers better price - Compaq offers customers a better, more cost effective business solution. For example, an HDS 9900 configuration of 3TB has a list price of $1.5 million versus $700,000 for a 3TB EMA 12000.
StorageWorks Attack Points Vs HDS
Why StorageWorks vs HDS Compaq delivers the Enterprise
Information Utility through ENSA, StorageWorks and value added software and services
SANs are an inflection point in the storage market and Compaq is better positioned to take advantage than HDS
Compaq SANs can provide the business value customers are looking for at significantly less cost
Compaq Storage Vs IBM
At-A-Glance
February, 2001
IBM Storage Strategy
IBM’s primary approach to storage has consistently been based on its proprietary architectures, i.e. S/390, AS/400, RS/6000 and Netfinity servers.
Seascape strategy attempts to unite different architectural components, including:
– Storage arrays and tape solutions– ADSM and Tivoli management– SAN components
Goal to be an OEM storage technology provider as well as market share leader
Compaq/IBM Alliance Strategic partnership between two industry
leaders– Cooperate to improve interoperability for customers– Work together to help define and promote open
standards for networked storage– Create a common open architecture to support storage
virtualization, data sharing and policy based storage management
Compaq VersaStor technology and Tivoli System-managed Storage technology will interoperate in support of open storage network environments
– Strengthen each company’s portfolios Storage solutions and services
– Endorse Tivoli enterprise management solutions
Components of the Alliance IBM will…
– OEM the StorageWorks Modular Array Technology– Endorse VersaStor Technology– Resell
SANworks Enterprise Volume Manager SANworks Data Replication Manager SANworks Secure Path SWCC (StorageWorks Command Console)
Compete against Compaq Compaq will…
– OEM the Enterprise Storage Server (Shark product)– Resell Tivoli Enterprise Management Software
Compete against IBM
IBM Storage Products
Netfinity Storage for IBM Intel-based Netfinity Servers
– EXP15, EXP200/300 SCSI arrays, EXP500 FC-AL arrays
7133 Serial Disk System– Midrange SSA solution scalable from 36GB to over 3.5TB– Supports NT, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris
Fibre Channel Array 2102– Storage for HP, Sun, IBM UNIX and Intel servers– Scalable from 36GB to over 2 TB
IBM Storage Products
Modular Storage Server (MSS) – AKA Compaq MA8000– Supports NT/2000, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris and NetWare and
OpenVMS– Scales up to 4 TB of capacity by using 18, 36, and 72GB
drives
Enterprise Storage Server (Shark)– Positioned as data center solution– Performance and price push - EMC killer– Supports UNIX, NT, AS/400, S/390, NetWare– Up to 11.2TB of storage and 16GB of cache
Positioning vs IBM
Netfinity Storage
7133 Serial Disk System Modular Storage Server Fibre Channel Array
2102
ESS (Shark)
RA4X00
MA6000 MA8000
EMA12000
Compaq SAN
IBM Strengths/Weaknesses Well entrenched in large IT shops IBM mainframe connectivity Storage management framework with Seascape
architecture and Tivoli software
Major focus in now on winning back market share from EMC - becomes distraction
Slow to adopt FC; Limited multivendor connectivity ESS lacks support for native Fibre channel,
Flashcopy and Peer-to-Peer Remote Copy Mainframe is still a priority
+
_
Why StorageWorks vs IBM
Compaq delivers the Enterprise Information Utility through ENSA, StorageWorks and value added software and services
SANs are an inflection point in the storage market and Compaq is better positioned to take advantage than IBM
Compaq SANs can provide the business value customers are looking for at significantly less cost
StorageWorks Attack Points Vs IBM
IBM offerings are proprietary - IBM’s focus is their installed proprietary base - NOT heterogeneous platforms. Stress IBM’s inexperience in supporting open and heterogeneous environments.
IBM offerings are complex - IBM’s offerings are complex, confusing, and mostly incompatible. Many IBM solutions/utilities are restricted to specific platforms - Not universally available or supported.
IBM leads with technology versus solutions - For example, Serial Storage Architecture (SSA) has not been embraced by the marketplace. SSA is proprietary, slower and more costly than Fibre Channel. Also, IBM has no significant SSA enhancements planned.
IBM is distracted by EMC - IBM gave up its mainframe storage market to EMC. Now they are spending $400M+ to reclaim it. In addition, they don’t consider Compaq a storage competitor.
Compaq has stronger SAN position - Compaq has been offering SAN solutions since 1998. IBM just recently began to formulate a SAN strategy. A Compaq SAN provides value via a modular, scalable storage architecture versus IBM’s monolithic mainframe focused design.
Compaq delivers on its promises - IBM is known for pre-announcing products/features and failing to deliver. IBM has failed to deliver key ESS capabilities such as Flashcopy and Peer-to-Peer Remote Copy.
Compaq offers better performance - The mainframe centric large cache design of ESS does not perform as well as StorageWorks in distributed Open Systems environments.
Compaq offers better price - Compaq offers customers a better, more cost effective business solution. For example, a minimum ESS (Shark) configuration of 420GB has an entry price of $310,000+ and offers average performance in Open Systems environments.
StorageWorks Attack Points Vs IBM
Compaq Storage Vs Dell Computer Corp.
At-A-Glance
February, 2001
Dell Storage Strategy Dell implements a direct sales model for storage -
Sells on price Dell is not an enterprise storage vendor
– Supports Dell Intel platforms only (added ProLiant)
– Does not support non-Intel based UNIX– Acquires technology through partners
Dell is new to the external storage market– Historically sold storage internal to Dell server– Did not begin selling external RAID storage
until 1998 with the introduction of PowerVault
Dell Storage Products PowerVault 701N, 705N – Low-end NAS PowerVault 735N – Mid-range NAS PowerVault 224F - JBOD Disk Enclosure PowerVault 660F - FC Storage Array
Dell’s low end NAS products are OEM’d from Quantum. Network Appliance relationship dissolved.
Dell’s PowerVault 735N is a Dell design CLARiiON OEM agreement effectively cancelled
Positioning vs. PowerVault
PowerVault 701N, 705N, 735N
PowerVault 224F, 660F
TaskSmart 2400
MA8000 EMA 12000 Switched SAN and
software RA4000 for ProLiant
only storage
Dell Strengths/Weaknesses Price Direct Sales Model
New to enterprise storage market Focus limited to NT (Some NetWare and UNIX) Limited to Dell and ProLiant servers today No technology expertise in storage Layoffs, reduced R&D investment, refocus towards
existing PC products
+
_
Why StorageWorks Vs Dell Clear vision and product roadmap for SANs Support for heterogeneous platforms today
–Convergenet provides an added middle layer of complexity and management
Large global services organization Experience in the enterprise storage market -
Dell’s direct model not the best fit for enterprise sales
Attack Points Against Dell
Investment Protection? Dell dropped Network Appliance, replaced CLARiiON. Where’s the stability and compatibility? Upgrades typically require replacing existing products.
Enterprise Experience? Dell’s focus has been on NT with no evidence of supporting of UNIX from Sun, HP, IBM or Compaq.
Product Selection? Dell has limited storage offerings. Compaq has a complete suite to select from to best match customer requirements
Attack Points Against Dell
SAN Experience? Gartner ranks Dell as average with limited vision while Compaq is rated as the clear leader.
Product Consistency? Dell frequently changes suppliers. There is very little uniformity in components. How many types of spare parts will the customer need to stock?
Service & Support? Dell depends upon 3rd parties to provide service for Dell products. What about multi-vendor environments?
