Feeds

IT utilities, the biggest game in town

Is your supplier a player or not?

The essential guide to IT transformation

Essential component suppliers

The essential components are the four categories above; servers, virtualisation software, networking (FCoE and 10GbE), and storage. How are suppliers doing so far?

Only Citrix/Red Hat, Microsoft, and VMware have the virtualising software needed, with VMWare furthest along the road to integrated virtualised server and data centre software with APIs for networking and storage. Microsoft's Hyper-V, positioned to be adopted by large numbers of existing Microsoft customers, will probably develop in the same way and we might expect some linkage between Hyper-V and Windows to enable a Hyper-V server to run more Windows and Linux virtual machines (VMs) than an ESX server. After all, there is much code in Windows - multi-tasking, for example - that can be junked in a single-app VM environment, and various Windows services could be sent upstairs to Hyper-V.

All other suppliers will use hypervisors and data centre-level software from these three sources. Oracle/Sun might try to propose a Solaris-based stack with Solaris containers instead. That will depend on Oracle's intentions - and we await those with interest.

None of the virtualising software vendors looks as if they could build a complete systems offering. EMC is furthest along this road, having both the leading virtualisation software supplier - VMware - and being the leading storage supplier to enterprise data centres. But it shows no signs of wanting to acquire a server supplier or a networking supplier.

Microsoft's traditional relationship with hardware vendors of the server, storage, and networking persuasion is to partner with them openly, favouring none. It has the financial resources to build a complete system, but to do so would be pretty much counter to its DNA.

Servers

Servers can come from Intel OEMs or AMD OEMs. It's entirely possible IBM will propose Power-based server complexes and even develop its mainframes into private cloud service utility machines, if it hasn't already done so, but the mainstream will be X86.

Blade and rack server suppliers such as Rackable and Verari could, do in fact, compete here, but will need compelling integrated storage, networking, and virtualisation software in a complete-system package that is differentiated from Cisco, HP, IBM, Oracle/Sun, and the potential Japanese supplier. They might look for private cloud niches to specialise in as a way of limiting the demand on their resources. Either or both might even get bought by a server supplier needing to strengthen its offering to the private cloud data centre market.

Cisco, HP, and IBM are confirmed players in the complete-systems market. To my mind Dell is not. It has the blade servers, already OEMs VMware and Microsoft software, and has both in-house (EqualLogic) and OEM'ed EMC Clariion storage. However, it doesn't have any more scalable storage than Clariion and, so far, has no expressed FCoE strategy. Clearly there is the potential for Dell to strengthen its storage offerings - but does it have the corporate will?

Dell also OEMs networking products from both Cisco and Brocade and has made no signs at all about distancing itself from Cisco or getting closer to Brocade. It's as if Dell is ruminating what to do. Can it afford, in the long term, not to be a complete-systems supplier to the private cloud market? Will there be any viable complete-systems suppliers to that market who OEM Dell servers?

Many people would answer these questions "No" and "No", in which case Dell has to assemble the components it needs and step up to the mark. How it will assemble the missing storage and network pieces is an interesting question.

HP and IBM have in-house storage products which they can integrate into their product offering. Cisco does not, hence its partnerships with EMC and NetApp. HP also has its in-house ProCurve networking products, an offering IBM lacks, and is probably the strongest complete-system private cloud vendor at present.

Oracle/Sun has in-house storage and networking, although the Sun networking products are not as well-positioned or as rounded as either Cisco's or HP's. Sun's Open Storage ideas are right on the money for building commoditised storage with commoditised software. But it all depends upon Oracle's intentions as to whether this will see the light of day.

Boost IT visibility and business value

Next page: Networking vendors

More from The Register

next story
Pay to play: The hidden cost of software defined everything
Enter credit card details if you want that system you bought to actually be useful
HP busts out new ProLiant Gen9 servers
Think those are cool? Wait till you get a load of our racks
Shoot-em-up: Sony Online Entertainment hit by 'large scale DDoS attack'
Games disrupted as firm struggles to control network
Silicon Valley jolted by magnitude 6.1 quake – its biggest in 25 years
Did the earth move for you at VMworld – oh, OK. It just did. A lot
VMware's high-wire balancing act: EVO might drag us ALL down
Get it right, EMC, or there'll be STORAGE CIVIL WAR. Mark my words
Forrester says it's time to give up on physical storage arrays
The physical/virtual storage tipping point may just have arrived
prev story

Whitepapers

Top 10 endpoint backup mistakes
Avoid the ten endpoint backup mistakes to ensure that your critical corporate data is protected and end user productivity is improved.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Backing up distributed data
Eliminating the redundant use of bandwidth and storage capacity and application consolidation in the modern data center.
The essential guide to IT transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIOs automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.