FAST 0.5 exposes the changed game of storage

Chris Evans, the Storage Architect, had an unexpected analysis of EMC's FAST announcement today on his blog. The point he makes is that with FAST only being available on Intel-based array architectures - and not the DMX product line - that EMC has put themselves at a peer level with the rest of the industry.  As he says:

So what’s my point?  Well, simply this; EMC have legitimised the enterprise modular architecture characterised by V-Max.  This accepts that the future is commodity-based hardware with differentiation in software.  However, EMC are no longer the leaders in this field and are having to play catch up.

It's an interesting angle to be sure and it will be interesting to see how EMC's new platform works out after all the bluster and FUD over FAST is long forgotten.  EMC is going to busy in the years to come as they try to convert their DMX customers to v-Max customers.  All vendors go through this sort of thing when they introduce new architectures and even their most loyal customers are more or less forced to consider alternatives.  There is a lot of pressure on EMC all of a sudden to bring software to market that justifies the switch from the DMX -to v-MAX.  FAST has failed to do that so far.

EMC's pre-announcement of FAST earlier this year was presumably done to shore up their disappointing SSD sales - a tactic that apparently did not help their enterprise business much. But having played the FAST hand so early, they had no choice but to release FAST version 0.5 before the end of the year.  Will this help answer the questions about EMC's ability to develop enterprise level software for v_Max?  The answer has been loud and clear - let's wait until Fast 2.0.

EMC was way too early with SSDs and they just repeated the same mistake with FAST. Instead of creating an advantage for themselves, they allowed their competitors to observe what they are doing without applying any pressure. Instead, unexpectedly, the pressure is now on EMC to do better.  

Considering that 2009 was a year of backpedaling for EMC, I want to offer lessons in the art with this video:

Comments

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Marc

Gotta appreciate that you're paid to write this stuff, but -- c'mon -- lighten up!

You'd think you were competing with us or something!

First, we're all pretty happy with EFD adoption, and the customer impact, and have been for a while. Not bad for a brand, spanking new storage technology.

When you have them in your product, you'll agree as well. You'll find out that customers love'em!

As we mentioned in our earnings call, V-Max adoption has been strong, and -- compared to other technology transitions we've done in the past -- is going better than usual.

"Way too early" on EFDs and FAST? Wow. How do you feel about FCoE, Atmos, etc.? Not to mention VMware, RSA, Iomega, Ionix, Avamar, etc.?

Sorry if the pace is causing you frustration.

Funny video clip, though ...

-- Chuck

[marc farley]

Thanks for commenting Chuck. It's OK for you to not acknowledge disappointments at EMC, but they certainly exist. Your bad timing on SSDs was exaggerated somewhat by the economy and that was a tough break for you folks. I'm also sure that EMC customers with SSDs probably do like them. I'd hope so anyway, considering the cost.

The FAST rollout lacked the pomp and circumstance that EMC normally brings to the table. There was obviously a calendar commitment to getting something FAST out the door and there wasn't a whole lot you could do about that. At least now you have a baseline for setting customer expectations for FAST 2.0

[the storage anarchist]

Ummm...Marc. Hello? Didja NOTICE the market share gains that EMC demonstrated in Q3. GAINS, dude, not back-pedalling. Across the board. And as Chuck notes, V-Max adoption is strong - as is SSD adoption.

FAST v1 should accellerate both SSD *AND* SATA adoption across Symm, CLARiiON, and Celerra - even if "all" it does is to automate data placement based on policy and usage patterns. You of all people should recognize that automation simplifies things, and frees up resources for other tasks. It's all about lowering the TCO.

Oh - and PS not required...FAST is intended for the storage admins, designed from the ground up for ease of use.

And for the record, FAST v1 is EXACTLY as we announced it back on April 14th, and it is GA without sacrificing ANY planned features or capabilities that we had scheduled on April 14th (in fact, we added a few bells and whistles since then). Hitting schedules with the defined content and quality is always a challenge, but the Symm team now has a track record of several years and releases.

It is that predictability that permits us to inform the market of our intentions in advance of delivery. Not everyone can pull that off.

So, you may choose to attack FAST and the pre-announcement strategy, but customers are thanking us for providing them a predictable roadmap against which to plan and budget. And many of your "prize" customers are now telling us that we have not only matched your value, they say we've exceeded it in numerous areas.

As to pomp and circumstance, you make me laugh. You attacked the market frenzy EMC created with V-Max, and now you attack the calm, informative, trusted partner approach used with FAST. I'm sure you'd prefer we just did press releases and left it at that...don't hold your breath :)

No, you just keep on firing away at EMC; at least that way your customers and prospects know which vendor you're most afraid of (and Chuck and I are happy to show them why!).

[marc farley]

Rantish!

[John F.]

"First, we're all pretty happy with EFD adoption"

Hmmm. Anyone from STEC care to comment?

Thanks

John