The new Garter Storage MQ is based on the following proposition:

"Improvements in scalability, availability, performance and functionality of midrange storage systems have blurred the boundaries between network-attached, midrange and high-end storage systems."

I am not sure what this really means.  Does it mean now that companies using the EMC VMAX or HDS VSP should take a look at Dell EqualLogic or NetApp FAS as viable 1-for-1 alternatives?   And should these same customers consider using NFS or CIFS in place of FC or iSCSI since, as the above statement implies, NAS and SAN scalability, performance and functionality are pretty much the same?  That is a big statement to make - NAS and SAN are interchangeable and fundamentally synonymous with one another. Perhaps that is not what Gartner is saying but it isn't very clear.  And what about the reverse use case - should IT professionals seriously consider high-end storage systems to replace mid-range NAS or SAN storage solutions?  Does the IBM DS8000 now compete with HP LeftHand or Nexsan NST?

Gartner also states that no extra credit is given to vendors that serve all market segments.  Okay so market segments don't matter?  So why are they talking about market segments in their analysis:

Dell Caution:  "Lack of presence in the traditional high-end storage market and its relative lack of success in the fast-growing NAS and object storage market segments are limiting its appeal as a storage vendor."  

So it would seem that you get no extra credit for serving all market segments but get penalized if you don't ("lack of presence in traditional high-end storage") or if you aren't particularly successful at it ("relative lack of success in the fast-growing NAS and object storage market segments").  

Unless you are NetApp - "NetApp is focused on improving FAS and V Series' competitiveness in large mission-critical environments. Early signs are promising, but this is still a work in progress that requires ongoing improvements in marketing, sales, product features and professional services."  

It seems that NetApp, in the second highest position on the MQ doesn't really need a high-end storage system but a solution that is on its way there in order to earn its top spot.  It doesn't appear to matter that NetApp has been trying to compete in the high-end storage space for nearly a decade and has failed to do so - and yet it looks like they get points for saying they are almost able to.  I am not trying to put down NetApp - they are a great company - but the Gartner analysis is contradictory.  

It is also very curious that HP was the visionary leader in storage in 2011 and is fifth place in 2012.   How do you rationalize such an extreme gap within 12 months?  We may never know since Gartner doesn't feel the need to explain itself.  

And the whole "niche player" thing is just incorrectly named.  The vendors in this box aren't focused on a niche but the broad storage market.  This has always been an issue with the MQ but we all just tralala along and ignore the fact that these vendors aren't niche players!   

I could go on and on about the puzzling analysis that Gartner has put forth. But there is a single point in all of this:  the Gartner Storage MQ premise is fundamentally flawed, subjective and inconsistent.   It attempts to paint with a very broad brush things that require detailed analysis.  Subjective analysis can be valid and useful but its arguments and rationale need to be able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.  This does not.  

What is needed is an analysis based on the real world focusing on both traditional and emerging storage solutions that is segmented and with more detailed information.  It is hard to imagine anyone - especially end user customers - getting any real value out of the Gartner Storage MQ.  

Connected Data and its product the File Transporter - www.FileTransporter.com

File Transporter is a "social" storage system that is accessible anywhere in the world.  Here is my breakdown of who should be interested in the File Transporter:

1.  Anyone that needs additional storage for their laptops, PCs and/or IPADs.  I use it for two of my Macs, one Windows-based PC and my IPAD.  I love that I don't have to connect via USB and that I can share it with all of my computers and devices.  

2. You need to access  your data anywhere in the world.  You download the client software and can access your data anywhere.  I travel a great deal and want to make sure I can get access to my data anywhere. 

3. If you want to share data with your family, friends, business associates, etc.  Yes I used DropBox today and I pretty much hate it.  It is cumbersome and slow and many of my clients have corporate polices against using DropBox.  And yes it does bother me that DropBox doesn't encrypt the data - so anyone at DropBox can see the data if they wanted to.  The File Transporter allows you to share your data securely and the user interface is very easy.  

4. You want to backup and archive data.  It is the perfect system to store backup copies and dormant data off of your active computers and devices.  In the future I am going to buy my Macs with less internal storage and move all of the files I don't use (which is the majority of them) to my File Transporters. 

5. It is great for individuals that just want additonal storage versus getting one of these legacy USB external drives. And the additional benefits of having it be used for all your devices is a big advantage.  Add to that accessing your data anywhere.  And being able to share your files just puts it over the top.  

6.  It is also a perfect solution for small business such as law firms, accountants, doctors, consultants (like me), etc.  You can use it for all of the above capabilties.  The backup use case also makes a ton of sense.  You can back up your systems to the File Transporter and keep copies of your data offsite.  There are still small companies that take tapes home with them!  And the more "modern" companies use ongoing cloud services they pay for monthly, which adds up pretty quickly.  You can remove all that expense and risk and use the File Transporter for offsite backup as well as for a number of other use cases - making the cost justification even more compelling.  

The File Transporter is a big deal because it is very easy to use, intelligent, shareable, accessible anywhere and  very cost effective.  I believe for individuals and small businesses - it is going to change how we think about storage.  

I love technology and am somewhat interested in your new fangled thing-a-ma-bob.  But really I want to see how that technology translates into value and in my mind the only real evidence of your value is if lots of customers want to buy it. If you have something of value then it shouldn't be that hard to sell it.  

This gets me to Nimble Storage.  They have an iSCSI storage system that leverages SSD and compression.  Yes, they have a bunch of the requisite features like snapshots, replication, etc.  But the key is the SSD and the compression! Nimble uses SSD to create a large front-end cache pool thus increasing performance transparently before I/Os hit the RAID engine.  And they use lossless compression ensuring data integrity and a predictable level of capacity optimization.   Nimble can go against other iSCSI storage systems and provide 5x to 10x more performance and 2x to 4x capacity optimization.  Storage always has and always will be about price/performance - which is at the heart of Nimble's value proposition.  That's it.  Simple. Smart.  Easy to do the math. 

And they provide an alternative to the channel from all of the big guys.  The channel lost 3Par, Compellent, EqualLogic and LeftHand to HP and Dell.  In comes Nimble to take their place.  

The proof is in the field.  They are gaining customer traction above and beyond the likes of NetApp and EqualLogic at the same time in their lifecycle.  That is meaningful.  And with their over the moon valuation they have a ton of capital to grow the business rapidly and enough equity appeal to attract the best people to come work for them.  

There is plenty of speculation as to where the storage market is heading.  Cloud storage.  Automated tiers. Global name space. Scale-out. Intelligent grids.  Intelligent clusters.  Unified storage.  All of these are interesting and important.  But right here, right now companies need storage to run their applications.  These companies want their storage to be easy to manage, reliable, cost effective and they want to make sure that performance is never an issue.  And it will be that way for a long time.  And that is why so many customers are buying Nimble Storage.  

Today it is fairly common for even midsize companies to have 100s of TBs and larger enterprises to have PBs of storage and it continues to grow. Therefore PB data centers will be ubiquitous over the next decade and are quite common already. It is no longer "business as usual" and a new approach is required to address the challenges created just by sheer mass. If you have 1,000 tons to transport do you really want a truck that was designed to carry just a 1 ton payload?

The Coraid vision is to eliminate traditional or legacy SANs and replace it with a new way to network storage. It uses what they believe is a more efficient protocol that has greater cooperation between the host and storage; massive scalability in capacity, processing power and memory, near linear performance growth for both IOPS and throughput, is easier to support regardless of how much capacity is under management, and is extremely cost effective. Coraid's pricing message is that the cost of a PB of storage from them is less than what customer would pay for the software maintenance with EMC and NetApp storage.

This isn't a commercial for Coraid. I am not using their storage however I am working with a company that is and they really like the value proposition. They aren't thrilled with having to put a card in their servers (which is required for Windows but not for Linux environments). However, the value proposition is such that they are willing to overlook this issue.  Coraid isn't feature-rich and their position is that they get these functions from either the virtualization layer, file system or the application layer. Over time this will become more true, if you will. Functions like snapshots and replication do exist on the upper layers and are becoming more sophisticated and widely available. Additionally, it is often the case that these features aren't necessary for the uses cases that customers are using Coraid for including Tier 3 storage.

Where the rubber meets the road for me is success with customers. I have been doing this a long time and every storage vendor that has ever met with me has given me a great story about their products. But it all comes down to whether customers are putting their money where their mouths are.   It is especially hard for a startup to convince IT customers to buy something new from a small emerging vendor. However, Coraid is booming. And I am very impressed with Coraid's vision.  It could be that customers just want cheaper and easy to manage storage but that isn't necessarily in conflict with their vision. It is an outcome of it. I like the idea of creating a sea change that is inevitable because the old rules no longer apply.  

So what does this mean? Well it is important for the end user because they now buy these innovative solutions from market leaders (in some cases this good and in some cases it sucks). It has also changed the value of the next crop of storage startups, many of whom are getting extremely attractive valuations from investors. Hey its only money and may be worth the risk if it leads to a billion dollar exit.

But are there still new categories and innovations to justify the next, next generation?

SSD Storage
One of the biggest areas of VC investment and new startups is for SSD storage system startups. On the surface you might just shrug your shoulders and conclude that the traditional storage system guys can just add SSD disk drives and match the value proposition of the startups. That is why it is essential that the SSD storage system vendors do more than just provide SSD and a menu of features. Instead they need to leverage SSD in order to provide value that the other storage vendors cannot.

What might this include? High performance is of course essential but it must also include a compelling price/performance metric. For example the price per IOPS should be less than $1.00. Most traditional storage systems with disk drives are far greater than this - $3.00; $5.00 and higher.

Capacity optimization is extremely important as well. SSD solutions need to drive down capacity costs so it is closer to spinning media in price per GB. Technologies such as thin provisioning are important but are pretty common amongst HDD-based storage systems. Primary deduplication plays a major role here. There is some controversy with using primary dedupe and impacting performance and even data integrity, so naturally it will be essential that both of these issues are addressed. Now keep in mind any new storage technology typically had these same controversies (e.g. differential snapshots and thin provisioning) but eventually these features became mainstream.

I am a big fan of tiering for SSD. Now the pure SSD players have a disadvantage in this regard. But data doesn't require high performance for its full life-cycle. Therefore having some way to move the data to a lower storage tier is vital. Now interpret this anyway you want. Just figure out a lower tier whether its HDD, a third-party storage system, the cloud or a dedupe tier but you have to make the economics work. It all comes down to money.

Quality of Service (QoS) is another capability that makes sense and can be combined with tiering. If you can assign performance SLAs on a per application basis then you can leverage SSD far more effectively. It is about using the resource and not wasting it. Again, this concept is not new but has not truly been embraced by the market. QoS + SSD can create a very visible value proposition that traditional storage systems can't match.

Cloud Storage - A Wide Open Landscape
I love it when the hype cycle is at the stage that cloud storage is presently. It is simultaneously over-hyped and under-hyped. Just when real solutions are making traction, it is losing its sex appeal.

Cloud Storage is real and is making incredible progress. And there are lots of approaches today. There is pure cloud storage solutions. There are cloud storage solutions that focus on unstructured data; others on transactional block storage; application-specific services and solutions; services that focus on individual users; consumer oriented solutions; etc.

PB Storage
There are medium-sized companies that have hundreds of TBs today. That means that in a year or two they will have over a PB. And of course there are large enterprises that have 10, 20 or more PB today. So we are now in the PB storage era. This is a massive amount of capacity that has its own set of challenges just based on sheer size. Storing all of this data on a single logical storage system is easier said that done. How do you maintain any reasonable performance and address the challenges of data integrity that come with massive scale? How do you protect it all? Where does it live? How much space and power does it require? And how the heck will you ever migrate all of that data between systems? And let's not forget cost - which always is a factor - especially with IT budgets being flattened or reduced.

Big Data
I was just at an event and the question was raised as to whether people were going to be using the cloud to store big data. I suggested that you first need to define big data. Big data means different things to different people just like "data" in of itself means different things depending on who you are talking to. To a movie studio data means video and audio. To a bank data means financial information. And on and on. Big Data is as varied as data. The importance of big data is not the adjective "Big" or the noun "Data" but the verb "Analysis". It is how we get the use out of that data that matters. Like most things in IT this is not really a revelation but a point of clarity that we are making. We have been analyzing certain data forever but now we need to turn to other forms of data (and there is lots and lots of it) in order to get better use out of it. Analyzing data can lead to a new product break through; improving services; streamlining finances; uncovering business risks; etc. Most importantly, it can make IT far more strategic than it is today. And that is a change that is long overdue.

So how does storage fit into all of this? There are vendors that have put together database and storage systems into a single solution in order to optimize performance to run analytics. There are storage systems that have been optimized for performance for database analytics (e.g. SSD storage systems). But Big Data analytics is still emerging and could stumble and fall. Because the value proposition has to be tangible and easily consumed. I know of very few big data analytic projects that have been landscape changing beyond improving query response times.

What needs to happen (and the process has sort of begun) is the convergence of worlds that are otherwise disparate. You need to bring the business analytic world together with the IT infrastructure world and make something that is best-in-class in both.

Unstructured Data
The constant and relentless trend has been that unstructured data far outstrips any other data type in capacity growth and this reality is perpetual. Yet most of the new storage startups are just focused on SAN-based solutions. Where are the next generation NAS guys? If you are out there I hope you are focused on more than just a new scale out file system or architecture. Because its not that important. If you want the recipe for success - BIG SUCCESS - I have it. Give me a call :)

Data Protection and Recovery
Not only does backup suck but so does replication. This space needs total reinvention but here is a catch - it isn't friggen easy. It is friggen hard. The challenge is not just technological but also with business execution. You must overcome incumbency. You must be able to deal with educating a legacy mindset with customers. You most ensure that you don't break anything as you attempt to fix everything. Additionally, there has been no uber-big wins in this arena. But whomever can solve this problem and can execute in the market can be the next billion-dollar baby.

Note - I purposely left out vendor names in this blog entry.

Here is what the IBM OEM with Nirvanix means in the real world:

- IBM Global Services is a powerhouse and is certainly able to drive some enormous opportunities. It will be interesting to see some big wins based on this relationship. IBM could potentially change the whole cloud storage game based on their execution and go-to-market.

- Perhaps more importantly this relationship validates Nirvanix to large corporations, organizations and government entities that might have otherwise have been interested in the solution but hesitant because of their size.

- Not only does this help to validate Nirvanix but Cloud storage as well! Let's not forget there is still a great deal of uncertainty out in the market. Again, IBM GSS lessens Cloud FUD a great deal.

- IBM Global Services, a well-respected and extremely successful business most likely did intensive due diligence and this should accelerate the decision-making process for other companies looking at Nirvanix.

- Additionally, it raises Nirvanix above the crowd and gives them visibility to new markets and customers that weren't paying attention to them before.

The next day after the IBM announcement there was another one with Cerner, the large healthcare services provider. Cerner will provide cloud storage for the healthcare industry. This is also a big deal focusing on a very strong vertical industry with a major player. It perhaps was overshadowed a bit but in many ways is just as important. The amount of unstructured content is massive in the healthcare industry and having a focused partner to drive this market is critical to being a leader.

No Competition.
You can argue all you want with me but Nirvanix really has no viable compeitition. And you really should pay attention to storage companies that provide unique value (e.g. Data Domain, Isilon). Yes, there are "ish" competitors - solutions that sort of appear as competitive products but really aren't. The cloud services by Amazon, Microsoft and Google are not competitive. Nirvanix is focused on the Enterprise and these other services are essentially focused on individuals and not companies. In other words, a techno-geek will use Amazon S3 for some project or service but an Enterprise-class IT department isn't going to use it for storing their unstructured data long term. In addition to whatever technology pros and cons with different cloud offerings there is an extremely valuable and essential issue of building relationships with their vendors that is important to the Enterprise. They want people they can work with, negotiate services and terms, that understand issues in the data center, provide personalized service and influence the direction and vision of the solution. You are not going to get that with Amazon, et al.

The large storage vendors for all intents and purposes are absent from this market. And I mean all of them - Dell, EMC, HDS, HP, IBM Storage, NetApp and Oracle have nothing really to speak of. Interestingly, one of the next big things in storage is going to be cloud and none of them have anything real and at best something that is some level of being cloud-ish.

Why This Matters
Cloud storage will not replace the data center. However, it is an essential part of the overall services that every IT professional should be considering and planning on going forward. Unstructured data is growing at a far more rapid rate than any other data type and it will continue to do so. And the majority of this data is dormant and is consuming endless amounts of Tier 1 and Tier 2 storage on premises or at some co-location facility. The impact on capital and operational expenditures is extreme and will only get worse over time. The is an unsustainable situation that requires a resolution. Additionally, cloud storage offers a great platform for replicated and backup data as well. Furthermore, there is an opportunity for new businesses to emerge using cloud storage as its basis - this is already happening but we are at the tip of the iceberg. And Nirvanix is the only cloud storage vendor that is building true momentum for this market.

Here is a list of all of the articles on the Nirvanix and IBM deal if you want to check them out:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/siliconangle/2011/10/12/ibm-upgrades-cloud-play-with-startup-nirvanix-stock-hits-52-week-high/

http://wikibon.org/blog/ibm-outperforms-even-apple-smarter-planet-big-data-and-cloud-power-the-future/

http://www.datamobilitygroup.com/IBM_Nirvanix_OEM.php

http://neovise.com/nirvanix-and-ibm-disrupt-the-storage-industry-with-enterprise-cloud-storage

http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/12/ibm-announces-new-smartcloud-services-partnership-with-nirvanix/

http://www.thebiggertruth.com/2011/10/ibm-oems-nirvanix-cloud-storage-and-why-everyone-should-care/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

http://siliconangle.com/blog/2011/10/12/ibm-puts-amazon-google-on-notice-with-nirvanix-oem-partnership-cloud-leadership-is-about-scale-advantage/

http://www.ssg-now.com/ibm-global-services-integrates-nirvanix-cloud-storage-in-smartcloud-enterprise-service/

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/10/12/ibm-beefs-up-public-cloud-services-for-enterprises/

http://www.dcig.com/2011/10/cerner-and-ibm-send-industry-message.html

http://www.storage-switzerland.com/Blog/Entries/2011/10/14_Calling_IT_-_Nirvanix_Keeps_Rolling.html

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Data-Storage/IBM-Engages-Nirvanix-to-Supply-HighEnd-Enterprise-Cloud-Storage-514026/?kc=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RSS%2Ftech+%28eWEEK+Technology+News%29

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/13/ibm_oems_nirvanix/ http://www.infostor.com/backup-and_recovery/cloud-storage/nirvanix-deal-to-expand-cloudsmart-storage.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

You have to understand that file storage is growing far greater than block and there are only a finite number of players that have any credible solutions . NetApp is the king. EMC just become a lot more interesting with Isilon. And if NetApp is the king then Microsoft is the pope. And everybody else kind of sucks in terms of revenue and footprint.

BlueArc has a great file system and competitive NAS solution but their biggest challenge is having the resources to scale their business. HDS provides additional resources to make this happen. Additionally, HDS has been focusing on SAN storage primarily and adding the BlueArc folks gives them the best independent team in the NAS world.

So think about what I said earlier. File storage growth is eclipsing all other storage types. And there are fundamentally only three players. HDS just made a move that could make them the fourth player. BlueArc is an Enterprise-class NAS solution and that is who HDS sells to. What does IBM do now? HP? Oracle? Dell? They have no real answer to fastest growing segment in storage. HP, IBM and Dell all have file system solutions but none of them can address Tier 1 NAS.

Interestingly, from a bevy of vendors and startups only three NAS players have really been successful including NetApp, Isilon and BlueArc. And arguably only NetApp has been able to do it all on their own. Compare this to the massive number of SAN-based storage system vendors that have achieved amazing success. And yet, file storage is experiencing massive growth and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

This is the biggest acquisition by HDS and they have yet to prove they know how to leverage their resources including sales, marketing, operations and engineering to create a meaningful accelerated trajectory for BlueArc especially when compared to Dell with EqualLogic, EMC with Data Domain (and others) or even HP with LeftHand. And since HDS has OEMed BlueArc for several years, will owning the company change the dynamics in any substantive way? Hopefully HDS has an integration plan that will make this a home run for them. I think this is a smart and overdue move for HDS but you know what I'm saying.

I think Mike Gustafson did a great job and the purported $600 million acquisition price is a big win. BlueArc has a great file system and their solution is arguably the only Enterprise-class NAS, based on its scalability and performance. They really were the last man standing in the NAS marketplace and HDS did the right thing by finally becoming betrothed.

The reasons for implementing primary dedupe is as clear as day. Data growth is ridiculous and never ending. The math is simple to grasp:

• Primary storage is growing at a CAGR of 60%.
• If you have 10 TB of data today that means you will have 16 TB next year at this time.
• In five years this will turn into 104 TB.
• If you have 100 TB of data today you will have 1.04 PB in five years.
• And since most storage systems have about 40% capacity utilization then you are talking about 250 TB of capacity to store 100 TB of data and 2.5 PB of capacity to store 1 PB of actual data.

Let us do the dedupe math:

• If you just get a 4-to-1 ratio then 10 TB of data is reduced to 2.5 TB of data.
• Based on a 60% CAGR in one year you will have 4 TB and in five years it will be about 26 TB. Compare that to 104 TB in five years!
• If you get a 10-to-1 ratio then you will only have about 10 TB in five years versus 104 TB! That is a magnitude in the difference of actual data being stored. And those dedupe ratios are achievable in virtualized environments.

I know it sounds too good to be true but even with a modest dedupe ratio the economics are simple to quantify and justify.

The strange thing is that we really don’t have wide adoption of primary dedupe. It is a no-brainer technology that very few storage vendors have actually implemented. NetApp has a distinct advantage over other storage vendors and is actually winning business because of their dedupe technology. To be candid, NetApp dedupe does have a number of limitations and yet none of their major competitors have stepped up to answer the call.

There are signs that other storage vendors are stepping up. Dell acquired Ocarina and IBM bought StorWize. Additionally, Permabit is a vendor that has primary dedupe technology and there are a number of vendors they are working with. I predict they will be acquired shortly and that will leave every other storage vendor out in the cold. However, none of these technologies have made their way into the market yet. A startup called Nimble Storage is growing like crazy and while they don’t actually have dedupe they do have in-line data compression and even with that they have measurable cost per GB advantage over their competition. Data compression is good. Dedupe is better. And data compression combined with dedupe is the best.

I could be cynical and conclude that storage vendors don’t want to implement primary dedupe because it would cost them money. But I doubt that is the case because it is inevitable and it already is costing them money since they are losing business over it every day. I think it the reason is primary dedupe is really hard to implement. Therefore the vendor that does it best will have a clear advantage over all of the others.

NetApp gained leadership for many years in great part because of their snapshot technology. 3PAR was acquired for an unprecedented price in great part because of their thin provisioning technology. The jury is still out on which storage vendor will be the primary dedupe leader but whoever it is will inevitably experience great success. And it will change the industry for the better.