It's not going to be this easy to bridge Fibre Channel and Ethernet!

Before the holidays, I posed a question on Google+ that generated quite a bit of interest and feedback. Now that it has settled down a bit I’d like to summarize the unresolved elements to make FCoE truly a world-class storage interconnect.

Setting the Stage

FCoE has been a controversial topic in both storage and networking, and for good reason. No one would deny that Ethernet is not an ideal transport mechanism for block storage I/O. “Porting” Fibre Channel to run on Ethernet networks has been a supreme technical challenge, and many companies and individuals have labored long and hard to make FCoE a reality.

Now that FCoE is specified in the standard and has been deployed in production environments, the question turns to its future. Will it take off and seize the mantle of dominance currently held by what I like retroactively to call “Fibre Channel over Fibre Channel?” Will they coexist for the next decade, with FCoE mainly deployed in “block” environments such as Cisco UCS? Or will FCoE ultimately fail to catch on, displaced by some other storage protocol like plain FC, iSCSI, NFS, or something entirely different?

The data center needs a flexible new protocol to meet the needs of virtual environments, and convergence of storage and data networking makes a great deal of sense in these environments. This was the root of my question, and I ask it in all earnestness.

My question: What elements remain unresolved to make FCoE truly world-class? What should the vendors be prioritizing? Here are the answers I received.

Technical Considerations

Link Aggregation on CNA’s

Converged network adapters (CNA’s) allow multiple protocols to access a single Ethernet connection, but some also include multiple ports that can be aggregated. In traditional Ethernet networks, link aggregation is a respectable approach for performance and availability. But storage networks have traditionally relied on host-based MPIO software, and these features are mutually exclusive. The zeitgeist seems to be a recommendation to avoid link aggregation on CNA’s that are used for storage networks.

How Do You Handle Virtual Machine Mobility?

As I described recently, virtual machine mobility is a major technical challenge for existing networks. The VMware proposal, the VXLAN, seems to be gaining traction right now. But this is only a solution for data networking. How will FCoE SANs handle virtual machine mobility? This remains unresolved as far as I can tell, though Ethernet switch vendors have come up with their own answers. Brocade demonstrated just such a solution at Networking Field Day 2, and I know that others have answers as well. But will there be an interoperable industry solution?

How Should FCoE Be Implemented Over Longer Distances?

Fibre Channel has traditionally relied on routers and other protocols (FCIP and iFCP) to span distances, but FCoE raises the possibility of native traversal. While it is certainly possible to span distances with FCoE, this is definitely not a recommended or supported idea. Without TCP/IP, or any routing mechanism, it’s just a bad idea. But I imagine that it won’t be long before vendors decide to give it a go anyway.

Implementation Considerations

Is TRILL Required for FCoE Networks?

This has been one of my own questions since the very beginning. Clearly, edge only FCoE works just fine without TRILL. But as networks become more complicated, and virtual machines move, it seems an awfully good idea to have some protocol to alleviate East-West routing concerns. I feel much better with TRILL (or some similar Ethernet fabric technology) in a complicated FCoE network.

Should All Switches Be Full FC Forwarders?

There are number of ways to implement FCoE on Ethernet network, and not all involve building a full Fibre Channel stack in each switch. While many (including myself) assumed that FCoE implied Fibre Channel forwarding in all switches, this is clearly not the direction taken by vendors, at least initially. Perhaps the current “Ethernet forwarding” approach is only a stepping stone, or perhaps it will emerge as the dominant FCoE standard.

How Will OpenFCoE and LoM Be Used?

OpenFCoE is a software solution allowing FCoE to be run without a CNA. If this became popular, it wouldn’t be long before data center architects began looking at LAN on Motherboard (LoM) and even 10GBASE-T as a potential SAN alternative. Will this be used in the long run? It could happen, but it’s certainly not something that’s here at the moment. But OpenFCoE is a real player, especially with Intel’s backing.

How Will Technologies like Zoning Interoperate?

Many networkers are just now beginning to see the true complexity of Fibre Channel SANs. Although interoperability of higher-level Fibre Channel functions between vendors has never been a priority in “FC over FC” SANs, Ethernet could change things. I would not be at all surprised to see a groundswell of customer support demanding greater levels of interoperability from FCoE than from FC, and zoning and VSAN is the likely first beachhead.

The Big Question: When Will We See the “Killer App” For FCoE

Just about everyone agreed that the real challenge for FCoE is market acceptance. Customers aren’t yet demanding FCoE, and vendors are finding it hard to articulate a compelling case to move from “tried-and-true” FC. Convergence, cost savings, and performance have all been put forth, but customers aren’t biting. Perhaps they just need a little time and a little more proof.

This post relies extensively on feedback from a number of people, including Ivan Pepelnjak, Tony Bourke, J Metz, Dmitri Kalintsev, Derick Winkworth, David Hardaker, Juan Lage, and Corey Hines.

Read Scott Lowe’s response: What Does FCoE Have To Do With VM Mobility?

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2012. | Eight Unresolved Questions About FCoE
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Everything, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

I'll be returning to San Jose for another Tech Field Day event this week

This is an exceptionally busy but rewarding week. I’m traveling to the San Jose, CA area for two events I’ve organized: The OpenFlow Symposium and the second Networking-focused Tech Field Day. I’ll be surrounded by some of the smartest and most interesting folks in networking all week, which is both daunting and exciting for a storage guy like me. I invite my readers to follow along on Twitter, in blogs, and through live streaming video.

The OpenFlow Symposium

OpenFlow is a huge challenge for datacenter networking. OpenFlow is a type of Software-Defined Networking (SDN) in which a controller directs the actions of switches using a standard protocol. It’s really in its infancy, having burst onto the scene after promising deployments at Stanford, Google, Yahoo, and similar massive scale data centers. Now the enterprise networking folks are starting to get interested.

Greg Ferro of Packet Pushers and Etherealmind has been a partner on Tech Field Day planning since the very beginning, and he helped put together the OpenFlow Symposium concept. It’s a simple event, with two long panel discussions planned for Wednesday. But actually pulling it off was quite a challenge!

Our OpenFlow panel includes experts from key companies in the space: BigSwitch Networks, Brocade, Cisco, Juniper, and NEC. We’ll also welcome end-user experts from Google and Yahoo, and the whole thing will be moderated by the Packet Pushers crew.

I expect a very lively discussion on the technology involved as well as the basic concept. Ivan Pepelnjak of IOSHints has been very critical of the need for OpenFlow in general, so it’s great to have him involved as a Devil’s Advocate!

Networking Field Day

The Tech Field Day concept has really grown beyond my wildest expectations. Beginning with a one-off “Gestalt IT” event in 2009, we’ve now blossomed to include a number of focused events including this week’s datacenter-networking themed Field Day.

Networking Tech Field Day 2 (“Net Field Day”) has become the go-to event for the best independent networking folks, and we’re pleased to be bringing back many folks from our 2010 event as well as some newcomers.

Presentation-wise, we’ve got some solid returning companies like Juniper, Force10 (now part of Dell), and Cisco. But we’re also glad to welcome Brocade, Gigamon, NEC, and networking startup Embrane.

Stephen’s Stance

I’m thrilled just to be part of the great group of companies and thought leaders who are gathering in San Jose this week. To be the “ringleader” and orchestrator is more than I thought possible! Watch live at TechFieldDay.com Wednesday through Friday, and join us on Twitter. If you’re in the area, drop me a line – maybe you can join us at the Symposium or our Thursday night party!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Networking Field Day and OpenFlow Symposium
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Everything, Gestalt IT, Personal, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Ready For Prime Time?

Now, “ready for prime time” isn’t really a technical term with a defined meaning, and perhaps this is the root of our issue. “Prime time” refers to the weekday night hours that have  traditionally been popular with television viewers and from which network ratings are derived. A program in prime time must have broad appeal and be developed well enough for a good long run if it becomes popular. It doesn’t need to be popular yet, but it must be ready for mass market acceptance.

J Metz goes out of his way to argue that FCoE really is “ready for prime time”, refuting four “statements” attributed to critics (including me). But he appears to be using a different definition of that term, suggesting that Cisco’s product GA is sufficient. This is his opinion, but I don’t share it. I think it takes much more than a few initial products and deployments for any technology to be ready for prime time, especially in storage!

Multi-Hop Standards

My article poses the question, “why use a 10 Gb Ethernet standard that remains in flux when 16 Gb FC is shaping up nicely?” Looking back, I agree that the standards aren’t what’s in flux so much as the interpretation and implementation of them. Although the standards will evolve (and are already evolving), they are fixed and functional today.

The standards for DCB are done, and implementation and interoperability is looking good (with the exception of QCN, which is of questionable value). But multi-hop FCoE needs way more than DCB. FC-BB5 is the real standard for placing Fibre Channel over an Ethernet backbone, and that’s been accepted for a long time. Real scalable FCoE networks will also probably need a datacenter fabric, and Cisco’s TRILL-esque FabricPath technology is closest to some kind of standard for that.

But real, functioning end-to-end multi-hop FCoE networks need more than standards, they need consistent and predictable implementation, and that picture is a lot less clear. For every confident Metz, Miniman, or Onisick there’s a Ferro, Fratto, or Bourke who continue to question the implementation of, and need for, these standards.

Multi-Hop Implementation

I later call Fibre Channel Forwarding and Ethernet fabric technology “decidedly experimental.” Metz counters that Cisco has a functional implementation, and I do not doubt that. But one company’s recent GA status doesn’t make Multi-Hop FCoE “ready for prime time” by my standards. By his own admission, “multihop FCoE for Director-Class systems (the most common for Aggregation and Core deployments) has only been available for two months.”

I trust that Cisco and Metz have a working implementation, but not enough to go out telling enterprise storage administrators to take the plunge on multi-hop FCoE in general or even Cisco’s product in particular. Give it a little more time to mature, and give me a reference customer or two. And it would be nice to have more than one vendor to buy from.

FCoE Interoperability

I also state that Multi-Hop FCoE interoperability “is a serious question” and Metz points out that HP and Cisco have an interoperable solution. But his example is an FEX module for HP blade servers, not an FCoE-capable switch that interacts correctly with Cisco Nexus using standards-based Multi-Hop FCoE technology. It’s not even using FabricPath, let alone TRILL or some other FCoE standard!

This whole interoperability conversation reminds me of the “Fool the Guesser” scene in The Jerk: Your interoperability is right here, between the ashtrays and the thimbles. As long as you want to connect this very specific thing with that very specific thing, ignoring the rest of the world of products, you’re interoperable. And don’t ask for multi-vendor FC forwarding yet.

Metz also makes a non-sequitur suggestion that someone wants the industry to wait for Brocade, but I’ve never said anything of the sort. We don’t need everyone to proceed, but we do need more than one company. Standards only matter if they help us do something productive and positive, and single-vendor standards might as well not exist at all.

The bottom line is that we do not have interoperability of FCoE switches today, and we won’t have it for a long, long time. This is not Cisco’s fault, since they’re closest to standards-compliant, but it’s the truth. Eventually someone (Juniper? HP? Brocade? Dell?) will come out with a standards-compliant FCF/TRILL FCoE switch and they will issue a joint press release with Cisco and the industry will rejoice. But most customers probably won’t mix switch vendors anyway…

FCoE Adoption

This big V8 is a "mild hybrid", delivering all of the "warm fuzzies" of alternative fuels without changing the world...

Metz’ final point is to refute something I’ve often said: That “no one” is using FCoE today. Truly, I say this more for laughs and to provoke thoughtful questions than as a statement of fact. I know that lots of customers are using edge-only FCoE in critical production environments with Cisco UCS today. In fact, I consider edge-only FCoE to be a sound practice and do recommend it to buyers of high-end enterprise IT gear.

But edge-only FCoE adoption is a double-edged sword (if you pardon the pun) for proponents of convergence. It benefits customers with simplified client connectivity, delivering much of the benefit of convergence in an easy-to-adopt package. And it gets the protocol out there in production, offering a path to an Ethernet-based SAN future. But it might just short-circuit the value proposition for full end-to-end FCoE, blunting its impact and slowing the urgency for exactly the kind of customers who might adopt FCF switches.

Metz and I have often talked about real customer adoption, and he assures me that there are customers of “Full Monty FCoE” out there, but they’re not talking yet. After all, it’s only been available for two months.

Stephen’s Stance

I leave it to the reader (and the buyer) to decide if FCoE is ready for prime time.

• First, they have to define FCoE: Does edge-only count?
• Then they have to decide if they have a use case that some flavor of FCoE fits.
• Then there’s the real question of risk: Are you ready to take the plunge?

I know that a number of FCoE-related standards are settled, and I know that there are products in the market and even some limited multi-vendor compatibility. I even accept that some customers are deploying real “Full Monty FCoE” in production. But I just can’t recommend that technology yet: It’s not prudent, widespread, and low-risk, so I say it’s not ready for prime time.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Multi-Hop FCoE Is Not Ready For Prime Time (Yet)
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Converged Networking Adapters like this QLogic 8242 are all the rage, but which are supported in VMware ESX and which have the broadest coverage of DCB features?

VMware has one awesome hardware compatibility list. It’s not the breadth of it (in fact, ESX’s range of hardware support is astonishingly small) but the thorough, public way in which VMware shares this information. It’s really worth a look, and I regularly visit the list to see what’s changed.

But the thoroughness and detail of the VMware HCL can be daunting. It’s fairly easy to search for a specific piece of hardware, but it’s difficult to tell what’s supported in a general sense. This causes trouble for people who are shopping for hardware, since it’s hard to know what’s supported without an exhaustive search.

As part of the preparation for my Storage for Virtual Servers seminar series this year, I decided to do some research. I’ve boiled down certain key hardware categories into a general plain-english list of what’s in and out of the ESX HCL. In the spirit of openness, I’m presenting this data here for all to see, and I welcome corrections and updates. Indeed, I’ll try to keep this page up to date as new hardware is added!

Minimum Requirements

No one should run unsupported hardware in a production environment. So the very minimum requirement for every buyer should be a list in the VMware ESX HCL with the proper firmware, driver, and software.

FCoE also requires a flow control mechanism, preferably 802.1Qbb, and the DCBX protocol to enable communication between ports. I strongly suggest running 802.1Qaz bandwidth management as well, since it will allow you to get more performance from your CNAs than plain PFC.

Congestion management (802.1Qau) isn’t required, and I’m not sure about the state of affairs for interoperability. So that’s a “nice to have” at this point, though it will certainly become more desirable in the future.

You might also look for a CNA that supports other protocols over DCB, since iSCSI is an attractive alternative to FCoE in the data center, as is NFS. But that’s just my opinion!

FCoE CNAs for VMware ESX

Let’s kick things off with FCoE CNAs. I’m not a huge fan of FCoE in general, but I do see it as an increasingly-viable protocol for large-scale enterprise virtualization products.

It’s critical to have supported hardware, and I suggest researching specific models on the HCL before buying. But here’s the general state of affairs with regard to FCoE CNAs:

I was surprised to see that Brocade and QLogic list 802.1Qau Congestion Management (QCN) as supported. I didn’t realize anyone supported this spec yet, or indeed that there was such a spec!

It’s also puzzling to see that QLogic does not list 802.1Qaz Bandwidth Management (ETS) as supported for the (admittedly older) QLE8042 card. Perhaps that’s a error? But then again, Emulex doesn’t list 802.1Qbb Priority Flow Control (PFC) for the LP21000, and although FCoE doesn’t require Qbb, it’s a very good idea…

Update: Emulex tells me the LP21000 does indeed support PFC (Qbb).

Stephen’s Stance

If you’re shopping for networking gear and want to move to FCoE eventually, I hope this list will help you get started. Most OEMs supply the latest Emulex, QLogic, and Brocade CNAs with their own part number, and the long ESX HCL is testament to this fact. But, generally speaking, if you’re using a latest-generation CNA like the QLogic 8200 or Emulex OneConnect series, you ought to be fine. The Brocade CNAs look good, too, but are a little harder to find.

Emulex tells me they will add QCN support once it’s ratified, and I look forward to learning more about the Brocade and QLogic implementations. I’d also love some feedback on how well these features work, and if they’re all they’re cracked up to be. Is one vendor’s PFC or ETS as good as another’s? And does DCBX really work in practice? I believe most folks aren’t mixing HBAs widely and are instead sticking to one manufacturer. That’s probably a good idea out here on the cutting edge!

I was surprised that no Intel or Broadcom cards are listed as supporting FCoE in the HCL. The Intel X520 is impressive, and I’d taken their “open FCoE” claims to include VMware. But I guess they’re not there yet, and this seems to be a glaring omission for a major player like Intel! Similarly, Broadcom is only talking about iSCSI with VMware. Where is their CNA with VMware support?

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | VMware ESX FCoE CNA Compatibility in Plain English
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

• My posts
  • ioSafe SoloPRO Review: Is It The Safest Place For Your Data?
  • 4 Steps To Respond When Social Media Goes Negative
  • Amazon Is Still The Best Place To Buy Office 2011 For Mac
• Tech Field Day-related posts
  • The 3 R’s of I/O Profiling
  • Tech Field Day–Intel–10Gb Adoption In Datacenter Network
  • Tech Field Day::Aprius
  • Tech Field Day 4 , San Jose Roundup
  • Tech Field Day 4: SolarWinds Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: Avere Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: Aprius Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: Actifio Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: NetApp Cloud Interview
  • Tech Field Day 4: NetApp Interview
• Other interesting stuff
  • Don’t spam Wikipedia
  • Cisco IOS Hints and Tricks: Does FCoE need QCN (802.1Qau)?
  • Brocade And Cisco Maintain SAN Lock-In Status Quo With FCoE
  • Brocade, Cisco, End-to-End FCoE And Who’s On First
  • EMC: Solid progress but a way to go yet
  • Oracle Broadens x86 Virtualization Support, but Work Remains
  • Plagiarism Week: Finding the Slimy Slimeballs

Subscribe to my Google Reader feed or follow me on Twitter to see these in real-time.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Back From the Pile: Interesting Links, November 19, 2010
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Everything, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Do you want X-series or P-series storage? Is A-series networking gear any good? And where did all these HP products come from?

HP has always been an alphabet soup company, assigning just about every item in their bewildering array of products a unique product number. Like Mercedes-Benz cars, even the product names are a mix of letters and numbers that can be off-putting to browsers. Now that they have grown to supersize proportions through internal expansion and acquisition, just about everyone outside the company seems to have trouble decoding the product line, so I decided to take a stab at decoding the enterprise lineup in plain english.

An Important Note

This is not a political activity. I’m not trying to comment on which product is better than which or pigeonhole something by calling it “midrange” when HP thinks it’s “high-end”. I’m trying to be descriptive and helpful to prospective buyers working to understand the multitude of products sold by HP.

I welcome your input. In fact, I demand it! I don’t know which product is which and need your help to improve this list. Please feel free to comment and suggest corrections and additions (wireless?)

Storage Products (“StorageWorks”)

HP’s storage products are divided into three categories:

• P-series is block (SAN) storage using Fibre Channel or iSCSI
• X-series is file (NAS) storage
• Disk backup will presumably get a letter series in the future

Storage Product Notes

HP engineering input into OEMed products ranges from minimal to substantial. The EML tape library, for example, is very different from the standard Oracle (STK) product on which it is based. The high-end Hitachi-based storage includes substantial HP input as well.

HP StorageWorks VP of Marketing Tom Joyce informed me that the 3PAR T- and F-Class boxes won’t be renamed at this point. This is probably a good move – capitalize on the value of the 3PAR name rather than the virtually-unknown “P-series” nomenclature.

Others tell me that the StorageWorks 4400 is hitting end-of-life in the now-ish timeframe. So it won’t get a new name either.

Networking Products

HP’s networking products are divided into three categories:

• A-series is enterprise-class core switching, routing, and 200+ AP wireless
• E-series is mid-market and SMB switching and smaller wireless
• V-series is SMB and SoHo web-managed and unmanaged switching and wireless

Networking Product Notes

HP’s 3Com acquisition focused primarily on the H3C (former Huawei/3Com joint venture) high-end switching and routing products. Although some 3Com gear remains in the E-series line (particularly stackable switches), the low-end fixed-port switches have seemingly been eliminated from the product line. The Colubris acquisition provided HP with scalable wireless products now slotted below the H3C gear.

Stephen’s Stance

Product lines are always confusing at large companies, and doubly so where acquisitions bring in legacy products and customers. I wish HP the best of luck sorting all this out!

Note: The photo at the top is of a Japanese clone of the Enigma Machine from World War II.

Image credit: Japanese WWII Enigma Machine by Radio Rover

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Stephen’s HP Product Line Decoder Ring
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Personal. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

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

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | The Enterprise IT Acquisition Game
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Everything, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Who will power the enterprise? The smart money is betting on a few superpowers taking over.

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

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Meet the Enterprise IT Superpowers
This post was categorized as Computer History, Enterprise storage, Gestalt IT, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

The Symposium will be held August 4th through 6th and attendance is free for qualified IT end-user folks. I’m very much looking forward to presentations by Nth President, Mark Gonzalez, Raghu Raghuram of VMware, Scott McClellan of HP, Chuck Brown of Intel, AJ Casamento of Brocade, Dave Crespi of Emulex, Kumar Malavalli of InMage, and my friend, Shannon Smith and Chris VanWagoner, both of CommVault. There will also be some excellent hands-on lab opportunities with the latest storage gear. Victoria Halsey’s Hamster Revolution talk looks great, too!

I’ll have a Birds of a Feather Lunch table on Tuesday focused on cloud storage. On Wednesday I’ll be moderating a panel on cloud computing, featuring McClellan, Raghuram, Brown, Van Wagoner, and Geoff Tudor, co-founder of Nirvanix. Thursday I get my own keynote, where I’ll be presenting Three Enterprise Storage Problems You Can Solve Today.

What: Nth Generation Symposium

Where: Disneyland, Anaheim, CA

When: August 4-6, 2009

How: Register on-line

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | LA Folks: Come to the Nth Generation Symposium!
This post was categorized as Enterprise storage, Personal, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Enterprise IT

• Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Your Reliance On Backup Tapes – What’s wrong with backup tapes? They’re inaccessible, making them unsuitable for most applications. My latest post for my Enterprise Storage Strategies blog.
• Is Licensing Turning vSphere Into Vista? – A group post for Gestalt IT suggesting that VMware’s tiered licensing strategy for the vSphere 4 family might cause anguish for customers
• Infosmack Episode 2 – EMC, David Donatelli and Non-Compete Agreements – I joined the StorageMonkeys Infosmack podcast to discuss EMC, Dave Donatelli, and con-compete agreements with Greg Knieriemen, Marc Farley of 3Par and StorageRap, and Tony Asaro of the INI Group
• IT utilities, the biggest game in town – Chris Mellor of The Register suggests that the biggest IT vendors are positioning to lock up the IT market.
• The Non-Compete Clause Debate….. - Steve Duplessie muses on the pros and cons of non-compete agreements and what they mean for the IT industry
• Who’s the pot & who’s the kettle? - W. Curtis Preston reacts to the skirmishes between Tony Asaro and the EMC bloggers
• The Only VMware-certified NAS in its Category: Why the Iomega StorCenter ix4-200r Will Resonate with Small Businesses - Jerome Wendt expands on the Iomega StorCenter Pro ix4-200r
• Don’t focus too much on costs, cloud computing is about business agility - CapGemini reminds us that cloud computing isn’t just about reducing costs
• What we talk about when we talk about cloud computing - The Google Enterprise blog lays down some of the hard facts about building a cloud on your own
• Review: Sun Storage 7000 Unified Storage System - Chris Evans provides one of the best reviews yet of Sun’s Amber Road open source-based storage systems
• Brocade Pokes Cisco in the Eye, Switches for IBM - A great headline and solid reporting by Om Malik on one of the first reactions to Cisco UCS
• TheInfoPro: Analysis or Marketing? - StorageMonkeys continues their probing of the storage analyst community
• A “Tweeterview” with Stephen Foskett, Nirvanix Consulting Director - Sunshine interviews me about Nirvanix, storage, and my new role

Apple

• Achieving Email Bliss with IMAP, Gmail, and Apple Mail – A deep, long post on GMail, IMAP, Mac OS X Mail, and how to get all three to play nicely together.
• Monitor Your Mac Remotely With iStat for iPhone - I love iStat for Mac OS X and the iPhone and had been meaning to write a review. This AppleBlog post is just about what I might have written!

Life

• There Goes Chrysler – NPR’s awesome Planet Money blog reported the breaking news of Chrysler’s bankruptcy
• The Venture Capital Math Problem and The Venture Capital Math Problem (continued) – Fred Wilson points out that there can be no such thing as unlimited venture capital
• Is it time to cut the Ethernet access cable? – Has pervasive wireless Ethernet made wired ports unnecessary?
• Interview with Micah Baldwin, Father of FollowFriday – Micah calls me out as someone who is doing interesting things on Twitter!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | Back From the Pile: Interesting Content From the Week of May 2, 2009
This post was categorized as Everything. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.