« August 2007 |
Main
| October 2007 »
Yes I'm a Sox fan. Yes I'm a Pats fan. I also love New York City – not the teams, but the City. Where else on earth can it take 2 hours to go 12 blocks in a cab because the psychotic President of Iran was in town along with our very own GW – who both flanked the Hilton where I was speaking at Decisions. And if that weren't bad enough, apparently the President of Iraq was staying at the Hilton, him being an HHonors member I guess. There were black Tahoe's everywhere and roughly 11,000 secret service agents all over the place.
I spoke about storage virtualization technologies – and my premise was that people need to stop being afraid, start actively embracing, and realize that they already do it (RAID, for example), and that each time they adopt an incremental virtual step they end up automating a ton of error prone, boring, tactical tasks that frees them up to move on to the next thing. I think the crowd got it – after years of preaching. Interestingly, the reason I think they were paying more attention than normal was because of VMware. I asked how many of them did NOT have a VMware or other server virtualization effort under way and approximately 4 out of 400 hands went up. I can assure you at least 2 of those folks didn't understand the question. Server virtualization has the following enormously relevant intersection points with the data layer;
- Server virtualization implementations mean people are going to buy brand new networked storage configurations – finally getting away from DAS. Most will not utilize their old stuff even if it is already networked.
- Those moving to a virtual server world are buying MORE capacity than they currently have on the servers they are consolidating – probably because it's just hard to buy small disks anymore.
- iSCSI is on fire in a virtual server play – which makes sense as IP is virtual already and the ability to seamlessly move IP addresses around has existed for 184 years.
In short, server virtualization is a perfect inflection point for storage folks to finally get rid of the DAS that caused such huge problems for them, and to start dabbling with iSCSI SAN's. NAS, by default almost, continues to be a supremely viable alternative for shared storage in a virtual server world.
Side Note: If VMware had a real clustered distributed file system – hidden beneath anything you needed to ever see or deal with – can you imagine how powerful it would be? They have already effectively eliminated the need for clustering for high availability, have the capability to fluidly move entire virtual machines from place to place, can create virtual multi-processor environments, and dynamically schedule changes based on time of day or workload – if they had a mobile, distributed lock manager underneath it all they could effectively consolidate all of your storage assets and enable true data sharing – not just disk sharing. VMware is as close as anyone to really having the "data center operating system" that I was rambling about a few years ago. If they were able to span outside physical boxes, the game would be completely over.
Anyhow, perhaps what I like most about NY are the people. Sure they have outrageous accents, but what you have to love about them is that they will call a spade a spade. I spoke at this Wall St. CIO type private event at the (ridiculous rich guy) University Club put on by Incipient (who was good enough to pay for the event, and smart enough to not attempt to dictate the conversation – I have to believe that not only myself, but all attendees appreciated that immensely). There were 25 Wall St. IT hitters – none afraid to take me (or anybody else) on in any area. I really do love the fact that these folks have lived through the wars, have some outrageous opinions (they collectively felt VMware and server virtualization in general was more work than it was worth – which was the first time in years I came to the realization that these guys were going to follow instead of lead – at least in this area), and aren't afraid to tell you what they think and why what you (I) think is stupid. I felt at home with these folks, until one gentlemen spouted out the proverbial "I go down and it's a billion dollars an hour……". All I could think was that if it were me, I'd just cry and never leave my bed if I had to do anything that caused a billion dollars an hour to be at risk.
So I met some interesting folks, who lead me to believe that while the mass market for network based virtualization is still a ways away, the money on Wall Street continues to be bullish and almost insistent that it will happen. They like the Incipient play. A few talked about the Acopia/F5 play and really, really liked that one. All in all, some great conversation was had.
Now, I shall be refraining from my NY love affair until the playoffs are over.
EMC's cap is about $42 billion. It's no secret that the company has been thinking about going private for a while – they don't think they are getting anywhere near the value that they deserve, and let's face it – if you aren't getting paid then why suffer the scrutiny of being under the public microscope? If VMware's value is even remotely fair, then EMC's is an insult.
So how about this? VMware is worth $32 billion right now. EMC still holds 90%. They spin the rest of VMware out, take the $28 billion, add the $5 billion they have in cash already, and take themselves private. Who needs private equity? They can do it all by themselves.
They spend the next four years annihilating competitive players without fear of the Dept. of Justice or the SEC. They buy who they want, sell what they want, and wreak havoc without having to answer to anyone. At some point they put the whole story back together (or spin out some parts) and take the now $20 billion dollar company public again, only this time with a $130 billion plus market cap. Guess who owns the $130B? They do – all those who hold their EMC stock in the privatization.
VMware lets them play with the house's dough. I have to believe this discussion is going on over in Hoptown.
Side Note: Someone gave me this idea in NY, and for the life of me I can't remember who. When I do – or when I'm reminded, I will certainly pass along the credit, unless it happens really soon, in which case I disavow any knowledge of what anyone is talking about…..
The world of computer shows has always been weird, but now it seems to be coming full circle. Twenty five years ago you went to technical symposiums put on by your primary vendor – if you ran Prime, you went to the Prime show, if you ran DEC, you went to DECUS. I have many fond memories of heavily bearded men walking around in suspenders and an excessive amount of brown colored clothes talking about 11/780's – until they found the TTI booth that is. TTI was one of those quasi-OEM types who really are integrators but they figured out how to put an 8mm Exabyte tape drive onto a VAX – and even better is the guy who owned the place was married to the sister of Barbara Bach (who was married to Ringo Starr at the time) who was smoking hot (even if it weren't a DECUS) so there was always quite a crowd at the TTI booth.
Anyhow, we went through this transition in the show biz from vendor specific events, to industry events. As specialization of function began to occur, specialization of shows was thought to be too myopic, so big industry gigs were launched. Comdex, Interop, SNW, etc. all had their time. Now, we've moved past industry specialization, further down into sub-functional specialization – and the show tunes are changing again.
EMC exhibits at everything including the flower and plant expo as far as I can see. It took them 25 years of business to become their own sub-culture – big enough to merit its own show. EMC World had 9,000 people attend this year. RSA has 17,000. VMworld just had about 11,000. That's 37,000 folks who came to see EMC owned stuff – in EMC's own shows! Symantec's Vision has tons of attendees, as does CA World. Storage Decisions is next week, and if there are 300-400 real IT folks, it's a hit. SNW is shortly thereafter, and no one ever really knows how many real IT folks will be there, but it ain't gonna be 9,000. It will mostly be the same 2000 industry folks that are always there, doing the modern equivalent of looking for the TTI booth.
I'm not sure industry specialization is going to be relevant for much longer – at least in show biz. We've got more storage analysts than the rest of the industry combined I think, and there isn't a single ESG'er speaking at this show, and it isn't because we didn't try. (Don't fret, we'll still be there in force, you can stop calling – and no, I'm not sure why, but looking at the agenda it appears to be 87% vendor speakers, and yes, I am going to be in Germany.). Vendor speakers? If that's what I want to see 87% of, then I'll go to the vendor show! The worst part is that some of these very nice people giving pitches are simply awful speakers, and the show people know it. It's a recipe for trouble. A bad speaker shows up at VMworld (other than Diane Greene) and you'll not see them again next year. Joe Tucci is no Tom Mendoza with a microphone, but those vendors are true big wigs and it's usually worth listening to what they have to say. Some product manager talking about how thick a fibre channel cable should be for 45 minutes stammering "um" every other word ain't gonna pack in the crowd, I'm guessing.
This gets me to my point, I think. Decisions is industry based, but is at least hyper-focused in the regard that they have a room of real folks who spend real money on stuff. There just aren't enough of them. Inevitably, I think these kinds of shows either must adapt to new realities, or simply go away. If you want to do business development in the storage market, SNW is the place to be. Maybe that's what they should focus on – lower the costs for all concerned, and take advantage of what they have. (Don't get me wrong, it's the best show on the planet for ESG – most of the people are our clients so it is very convenient for meetings). Decisions will have to come up with a different angle eventually – drop the costs for sponsorship or something, or else the vendors are going to go where the money is. Tek-Tools, an SRM player out of Texas told me they got 1200 leads at VMworld – and it cost them the same as SNW or Decisions. I'm not that smart, but it seems the math is kind of easy. They are smart folks, so they must see this.
The real problem these folks (and all the others) are going to face eventually is the web. People go to shows to learn something and hopefully connect with peers who live in their worlds – who have already crossed a bridge that they face. It's often that one little tidbit of information that you get that can save your bacon – and that's what makes it all worthwhile. Getting that answer hasn't been easy without shows like this historically – but the web 2.0 phenomenon is going to change all that. If Google worked in a specialty mode (i.e. it actually found you the right answer, not all 11 billion possible answers), then you wouldn't need to get on a plane to try and find out why this array crashes this operating system when performing this read on that database.
But nobody buys me drinks on the web, so see you in Dallas/NY/Germany/wherever….
This is my Storage Magazine article for September. Next month will be my last – as the true king of all that is storage, Tony Asaro, will be taking over the coveted (by whom, I not sure, but I'm told it's coveted) back page. He has certainly earned it.
There's been a lot of hubbub lately about the greening of IT, and it's going to get worse. Unlike most buzz/noise fronts that come and go, this one didn't start in the marketing department. It began with someone finding out that they had reached the end of the line when it came to adding another "wafer-thin" piece of IT gear. They were either out of room, out of air conditioning or out of power—problems that can't be instantly solved with a big check.
Most of the noise around green IT is centered on servers. From an infrastructure perspective, servers sit atop the food chain. They're also the presumed culprit when it comes to IT power and footprint problems, which is wrong, but it's about to be a moot point. Let's say I agree that your dual-core mega machines suck more juice and blow more heat than the participants of a tequila swilling, buffalo wing eating contest. Let's also agree that it will only get worse for a while, as we've conditioned our industry to make sure it comes out with chips that pump out twice as much for half the dough year after year … until they approach the temperature of magma and your PC needs it's own power grid. Do we need another 8 billion instructions per second capability to launch Word? No.
VMware will end the entire debate. People will get huge efficiency gains by consolidating servers onto fewer platforms, which will take up less space and require less power and cooling. Then, we'll find out that it was the infrastructure in the data layer that was the real culprit, not servers. Sure, racks and racks of servers suck power and blow heat at an astounding rate, but that's nothing compared to the 57 giant disk arrays and 986 smaller ones sitting idle; those huge tape libraries on the back wall consume more power than some small countries.
When that light shines, you can expect the marketing machine to churn out tales of more efficient, denser storage products. As always, the vendor's response will be to "throw out the stuff you have and replace it with our better stuff," which is good if you can afford it. If you can't, you need another tactic. You need to do what no one in our world has wanted to do for a long, long time. You'll have to manage. Ugh!
The guys at GlassHouse Technologies, a professional services company, have been talking about this for years. They know that growth, complexity and confusion have meant that people have had to "just buy more" instead of ensuring that storage assets are used properly. When the light shines and exposes faulty processes, guys like GlassHouse swoop in, do their thing and, lo and behold, your power consumption plummets, utilization skyrockets, policies are implemented and enforced and, at least for a brief period of time, your shop runs like it's supposed to.
Nobody gave these guys a shot seven years ago. A storage services company? No way. (Though I knew, I swear). Who would have thought we'd be having conversations about power, packaging and cooling? What's next, a debate on cardboard packaging?
Companies like Verari Systems in San Diego have the smartest server/storage packaging I've ever seen, and should have a real shot at altering the status quo in a dramatic way, but how unsexy is that? Will all of the Silicon Valley guys driving their new BMWs and yapping on their Apple iPhone Bluetooth be talking about air flow and exhaust instead of Java/Web 2.0/Google/Web Services? Will we go back to Pabst Blue Ribbon beer instead of Harlan, hot dogs instead of sushi? Fine with me – except the Harlan part, I'll be more than happy to let you buy me some Harlan anytime you wish. Harlan and hot dogs sounds pretty darn good actually.
OK, so I'm cynical, but am I to believe that this is mere coincidence? Netapp sues Sun for patent infringement over Sun's ZFS file system. Sun sort of denies that it infringed, tries to change the subject, and attempts to incite a civil war between Texas and California. A week later Sun buys a file system company.
Once again, let me stress that I am no lawyer - but like many (not all) lawyers, I do have several humanesque traits - such as common sense (and at least two nice suits). If nothing else, does not the timing of this make you scratch your head?
The move is pretty good as a hedge in case a judge slams Sun with an injunction and won't let them ship ZFS - especially since I figure a big revenue hit for a quarter or so makes them technically insolvent - so if that happens they will need to be able to ship something. Lustre has long been an accepted, well utilized file system within that bastion of capitalism and business computing - the scientific community. I don't think it runs unless the admin either wears a white lab coat, or sandals in the basement of an academic lab. I have no idea how easy or hard it would be to drop Lustre in to replace ZFS, I can only surmise that there weren't many other options at hand, though I'm sure they could also have used Redhat or Suse's file systems.
Regardless, it sure doesn't instill rip roaring confidence in their defense of the Netapp case. Sun does have a habit of doing things like this with no regard for what others might think, or even without how it might possibly affect their legal stance, so it's hard to say. I mean, it's not like they just OEM'ed Microsoft Windows server or anything...........Ooops. I'm starting to feel like either I'm in the twilight zone, or the industry is just screwing with me. Either way, cut it out.
First, Jonathan Schwartz, long time blogger and person not afraid to say seemingly loony things at any given moment (which I like, fyi) tossed out this one in response to the lawsuit. The JS blog fans seem to like it. I like the fact that he intentionally spells "Netapps" instead of Netapp (and do NOT try to make me believe it was a simple error - I learned such moves from Dick Egan et al in the day, masters of this game). I don't buy any of his argument, but his fans clearly do. Some compare Netapp to the evil EMC directly. That ought to ruffle some feathers.
Not to be out-blogged, Dave Hitz countered thusly with this. This is a particularly excellent blog if for no other reason than Dave made up a word - Litigoperation. I'm always looking for a new word. (My son was very bummed to find out Ginormous was made and official word, so he went on to create "togus" for totally bogus - he seems quite pleased with it thus far).
JS says Netapp never did something, Dave pops up an email that seems to prove that false, and off we go. Dave does get the best line of the match in with "For me, one of the most important rules of open source is that you give away things that belong to you." That's just stellar.
Question: is the stuff going on in public domain like this admissible as part of the proceedings? In which case, would you not want to make sure you were accurate in your statements? Just wondering. Any lawyers out there??????
Finally, why is it that west coast law suits always remind me of 7th grade girl fights? No offense, of course. I got my arse kicked by a 7th grade girl.......
Here is the official Sun response to yesterday's lawsuit alleging patent infringement by Network Appliance:
"From: Kristi.Rawlinson@Sun.COM [mailto:Kristi.Rawlinson@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:08 PM
To: Kristi Rawlinson
Subject: Sun Statement - NetApp
Hi,
Following is Sun's statement in response to the lawsuit and subsequent
press release filed earlier today by NetApp.
NetApp's legal attack against Sun's open source ZFS solution which is
freely available in the marketplace is a clear indication that NetApp
considers Sun technology a threat, and is a direct attack on the open
source community. ZFS is the fastest growing storage virtualization
technology in the marketplace, and NetApp's attempt to use patent
litigation to inhibit the meteoric rise of open source technologies like
ZFS is tantamount to being unhappy with gravity. As Sun knows well, and
NetApps' customers obviously recognize, innovation works better than
litigation.
Many of the claims raised in the lawsuit are factually untrue. For
example, it was NetApp who first approached Sun seeking to acquire the
Sun patents NetApp is now attempting to invalidate. It is unfortunate
that NetApp has now resorted to resolving its business issues in a legal
jurisdiction (East Texas) long favored by 'patent trolls.'
Bottom line, Sun indemnifies its customers, and stands behind the
innovations we deliver to the marketplace.
Best regards,
Kristi
--
****************************
Kristi L. Rawlinson
Corporate Communications
Sun Microsystems
B: 650-786-6933
C: 650-799-7061
kristi.rawlinson@sun.com"
Here's what I find interesting:
- I love the fact that Sun at least is still capable of playing a little offense. The entire first paragraph tries to make Netapp appear to be a big giant money grubbing beast for not only trying to take free ZFS ("the fastest growing storage virtualization technology")away from the poor, unwashed masses – but that they are also flagrantly attacking the sanctity of the open source movement itself! Brilliant! So, if I somehow wrote an operating system that happened to contain all the Solaris patents, and gave it away to anyone with lips, Sun would be ok with that? If Intel just happened to build a processor that contained eerily similar features and function (and code)to Sun's flagship (of course calling it Craps, which is Sparc backwards) – and gave the design away to anyone with an net connection, Sun would embrace the act as a milestone in progressive thinking?
- They say that "many" of the claims raised in the lawsuit are factually untrue – which means some of them are true. Oops. Many are untrue? How many? Then to add insult to injury, instead of specifying how the claim of patent infringement is untrue, they go on to say how the chronology of events was untrue. Who is Sun's counsel, Dewey, Cheatem, & How? You never say things like "many" – you flagrantly deny. Did Bill Clinton teach you people nothing?
- Then Sun makes the move of all moves – they insult Texas!!! These people have drive-through liquor stores and I'm fairly sure it's illegal to NOT have a gun on you at all times. Are you nuts? And what does an East Texas patent troll look like?
So, I'm not ready to concede a Netapp victory off of one email, but lets hope there is a little more behind the defense forthcoming. A much better response would have been "Sun doesn't comment on ongoing legal affairs, but believes these allegations to be frivolous attempts to slow down the tremendous success ZFS is having in the marketplace. We will defend our technologies and the right for people everywhere to take advantage of open source advancements with all of the resources we possess. While we firmly believe in the free market system above litigation, we will continue to fight for the rights of all within the legal system, and as always, completely indemnify any and all Sun customers." That would have made the points they were trying to make without leaving any room for anyone to get offended or to seem wishy washy on the issue.
Yesterday, I would have thought I'd have to make stuff up to keep this entertaining!
NetApp is suing Sun, alleging that Sun's ZFS file system violates 7 of NetApp's patents. I haven't read the complaint, but they talk about Snapshots and other areas that NetApp has had since they have been around.
They want an injunction and they want damages.
This will be interesting – not only because of the obvious money issues and ability to potentially hurt Sun in the market, but let's face it – everyone now has some form of Snapshot and other high-end file system features that NetApp has made a pretty darn good living on for a long time. That makes the implications much broader, and thus far more interesting. Unfortunately, these things take forever to get to trial at which point it's a total crapshoot, because you end up with a plumber and a limo driver having to decide ridiculously technical issues. Plus, the case was filed in Texas so there is a possibility of having a real cowboy on the jury!
When thinking about the downside (beside the incredible time sink and tremendous legal fees), I'm not sure I can find one. If Sun wins, NetApp gets more attention on these key features, which they have a long market dominating lead on, bringing to light that these features are important. Everyone else is already doing their own versions of these features, so they don't seem to have anything to lose. The upside appears to outweigh any downside. Furthermore, maybe other Sun competitors will pile on and do a cross-license with NetApp, hence validating their patent claims, in order to try to push Sun off the balcony. I can see how IBM (the patent holding king of the world) might be interested in such a thing – especially since they already OEM the NetApp stuff. Now I'm making myself frenetic. If it comes down to a jury decision, unless the NetApp lawyer is a complete buffoon, being able to say "ladies and gentlemen, forget the endlessly boring techno-garf you listened to for the last three weeks. IBM is the largest patent holder on the planet. IBM believes NetApp has valid patents, and as such did the right thing and licensed their use. Sun was offered the same opportunity, and chose to ignore it in order to illegally exploit those patents for their own gain. This is tantamount to the Chinese stealing trade secrets….." Can't you see it? Those good ole boys in Texas will start shooting up the place. Case closed, game over.
Finally, Dan Warmenhoven, in response to someone's question, just called Sun's non-response to NetApp's claims "reckless". That's CEO speak for "what a bunch of dipshits." I love that. CEO fights rock.
Here's the link to Dave Hitz's blog on the subject.
I just read an interesting thread from Roger Parloff from his Fortune blog. It's a nice summation, but makes me think that this judge is clueless. I'd like to think that while Reyes' motion for a new trial was denied, it has become even more apparent to me that he should be reversed on appeal. The arguments put forth by the judge for denial (according to the story/blog) are dumber than the original points. The point of backdating is NOT to cover up options expenses, it's to get people you deem important to be "in the money". The expense issue – at least in the Brocade case – is totally irrelevant as it had zero material impact to investors, the IRS, or anyone else concerned. I'd be willing to bet the judge has had more "gain" by hiding or adding questionable expenses and write-offs on his taxes than Brocade could have possibly realized in this action. I sort of wish I was called as an expert witness. Now that I understand the game, this should have never gotten to this point. Both lawyers must have confused the hell out of the jury, and it sounds like His Honor did nothing to clarify or correct the confusion and misinformation.
|
 |
|
