Enterprise Computing: Is EMC Storage Configuration Advisor A SANScreen Killer?
Enterprise Computing — By Chris Evans on May 13, 2009 at 8:00 AMEMC have just announced a new product – Storage Configuration Advisor (see the press release here). A quick review of the press release and the datasheet shows a remarkable similarity to Netapp’s SANScreen. Both products are pitched as datacentre automation tools – they monitor your configuration and highlight logical inconsistencies as they occur. SANScreen has been expanded to include some reporting but essentially the core product has remained the same since the Onaro days.
So, should Netapp be worried? I think so. EMC have a massive software portfolio and the resources (and desire) to execute on developing and pushing the product into customer sites. They can easily afford to give the software away as part of a bundled array and switch deal. On the other hand, Netapp don’t have a good record on management software. Could they really afford to give SANScreen away, bearing in mind the product manages hardware that isn’t their core competency? Probably not.
Any SANScreen customers heard from EMC yet?
Tags: EMC, Onaro, sanscreen, Storage Configuration Advisor
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
8 Comments
No new value since the acquisition for SANscreen?
I beg to differ.
We’ve added iSCSI, VMware, Capacity planning, data warehousing and a proven track record for simplicity.
SCA is, at best, comparable to an old version of SANscreen.
Time for you to get a refresher…
http://blogs.netapp.com/extensible_netapp/2009/05/sanscreen-lives.html
Kostadis
Actually, I’ve been poring over the SANScreen manuals in recent weeks for an unrelated reason, so I have an excellent view of what the product purports to offer. Unfortunately you missed the point of my post. SANScreen plays in the market that Netapp isn’t – enterprise storage arrays. EMC can offer the Storage Configuration Adviser as part of a bundled purchase and displace expensive SANScreen deployments. Even if SANScreen is currently superior, customers can opt save costs and go with the bundle option. Unfortunately Netapp can’t do that; the offer of free or cheap SANSCreen isn’t going to tempt enterprise storage array customers to move to using Netapp filers for their block-based fibre channel storage. So, to recoup the $120m purchase price, that’s a mere 2.4 million storage ports at $50 a piece that will need monitoring. I don’t see SANScreen being given away any time soon.
Anyway, for fun, I’ve added a poll to the blog…
> SANScreen plays in the market that Netapp isn’t – enterprise storage arrays.
This is the second factual error.
Kostadis, I assume you mean that Netapp isn’t in the enterprise storage array market.
OK, I’ll concede that Netapp filers support FC LUNs, however as they’re effectively PCs running Unix, then they’re more the modular than enterprise market. It’s a bit like using a DMX-4 for iSCSI – you could, but you just wouldn’t…
And that differs from Celerra, CLARiiON, Centera, Atmos, even the V-Max? Are you suggesting that none of them is any different from my laptop because their just x86 PCs running Unix/Windows/some old crufty OS from Data General?
You’ll be singing the praises of BlueArc next, given that it’s based on magical FPGAs!
Alex, I did say “enterprise”. I’d not class Celerra/Clariion etc as enterprise quality, so I’d be prepared to concede that filers could compete in this “midrange” market. Perhaps a good definition of enterprise and midrange is required.
Chris
Is it your assumption that FC LUNs are enterprise, and that iSCSI and NAS aren’t? That’s very narrow. Start with defining mid-range requirements, and I think you’d be surprised how quickly you run out of differentiators for enterprise. Perhaps monolithic and price might be the only qualifiers?
Alex
Far from it. However it’s horses for courses. Enterprise arrays offer a higher degree of resiliency and availability. Typically FC LUNs have been used on enterprise, unsurprisingly because they’re connected to the most expensive interconnect – fibre channel. Why use anything else if you just bought the Rolls Royce of storage hardware? iSCSI is a kludged protocol that Cisco/IBM developed to be “anything other than FC”. It never made the big time and will now die a death as FCoE overtakes it. And NAS, well that’s just for files.