Oracle and NetApp
Oracle's 7000 storage line is categorised by Siamak Navari, 3PAR's storage architect, this way: "Ours [3PAR] is very much a storage platform rather than a modified server platform. 3PAR is the best storage device we could build. The 7000 may be a great database server but is not the best storage platform."
Craig Nunes, now doing StorageWorks marketing, said: " Customers need to consolidate Oracle but also need to run VMware and other apps and really need to do it on one storage platform."
Donatelli jumped in and added this: "Most businesses run multiple apps. They don't want to specialise in niche products ... [because] this perpetuates infrastructure sprawl, which 3PAR is trying to move away from."
What about unified storage, meaning NetApp? (We have heard from a person who should know that there could be a NetApp Sucks T-shirt inside HP.) The answer is in two parts.
Scott said: "3PAR already has a relationship with Ibrix. We supported Ibrix as a front-end gateway for file access to 3PAR. We now have the opportunity to further integrate the platforms and add common manageability. It will take time. ... HP's intention is to put far more research and development dollars into storage. This will enable a faster route to market for developments."
Donatelli said enterprises mostly separate file and block storage, implying that the unified storage threat was not that strong.
We heard again and again that overlapping storage products was not a bad thing, and that it provided wider market opportunities than were available to vendors with single product architectures.
El Reg thinks that HDS might feel the invigorated HP's storage edge - although it does have a wider set of storage product categories than NetApp or Oracle. Likewise, Dell might find its accounts being visited by HP's in-house and channel sales reps. Dell has no real answer to 3PAR, having tried to buy it and failed. Obviously HP will throw a 3PAR story at every mid-range, enterprise and cloud Dell account it can find.
How about IBM? It has its own ongoing storage invigoration going on with the SONAS, SVC and XIV products. What HP will do is push the message that the DS8000 and other DS architectures are 20 years old and at some stage you have to move to a modern architecture - meaning 3PAR - and stop buying storage systems made to look good as if by putting lipstick on a pig (our phrasing, not HP's actual words).
HP is convinced that 3PAR - with its clustered multi-tenancy, thin storage technologies and autonomic management - is a storage star which will enable HP to claim its rightful place as a storage vendor equal to HDS, IBM, NetApp and Oracle. That's the plan.
Now it's down to the 3PAR team to evangelise itself inside HP, gain the whole-hearted support of its new colleagues, and go forth and multiply sales. Over to you David Scott, prodigal son returned to the HP fold. Can you work the magic and prevent 3PAR technology becoming just another unsuccessful HP attempt to claim the storage high ground? ®
Re: errmm, no
You really dont know much do you!
First off Compaq didnt invent it, it was actually a DEC product. I suspect you have never even played with one which is why your comments are so ill informed (if you had you would recognise the WWN set from the DEC pool for example).
Secondly it isnt behind in speeds and feeds its still more performant than most midrange arrays (and all the major ones at least) and more importantly its still as easy to use (unlike most other arrays) the only area it lacks in are features like thin prov and auto tiering (soon to be corrected from a roadmap I have seen).
Thirdly there are very few arrays that can ACTUALLY do true online firmware upgrades. If you really understood arrays you would understand why (clue, its bloody complicated to engineer, which is why most cant do it!).
Yes iSCSI is poor for the same reason that the EMC implementation and the NetApp implementations are so poor (infact most implementations except P4000/Equalogic). Yes it doesnt do NFS and CIFS so what its an FC block based array, whats your point?
Even bigger fools than those who buy the XP eh? (sorry did you mean XP only or are you lumping the HDS resell of the same tech (Hitachi is the developer not HDS!) USP-V in there as well?) Well this definately suggests you dont know what you are talking about! Those that buy the XP will continue to do so for good reason, 3par whilst a good buy isnt half the array that the XP is! (think mainframe/UNIX environments and their requirements compared to x86 and you will see why).
As for the rest of your comments Im not going to bother as you are entitled to your opinion.
Times are changing
Some of the criticisms above are fair, some are most definitely not. HP EVA was, even until fairly recently, ground breaking technology. And hugely successful. Yes, HP have been rebadging a few OEM arrays over the years but so have IBM, Dell, SUN, etc. It's been common practice in the storage industry. But things are changing. With the 3PAR acquisition, HP legitimately have their own IP at every level of the stack. And by stack I mean servers and networking as well as storage. Noone else has this technology, integration, and market performance at all levels. Cisco have networking, are trying with servers and don't have storage. IBM have tried and failed to crack the X86 market fully and have a hugely complex and random portfolio of storage products. HP have servers nailed and with P4000 (3 digit % growth!!) and now 3PAR they could have the pieces that have been missing from the storage portfolio. If they throw their full weight behind 3PAR, and it looks like they intend to, then expect to see that market share increasing quickly.
My main concern is that David Scott may not have the experience to run an enterprise and value storage division. Sure, he managed a company that made a good cloud product, but now he's head of a division that makes kit to cover not just cloud but also ties in neatly with a number of other hp products (backup, management, servers - especially hp-ux - and other vendor's storage devices). I'm just not convinced at this point that David Scott is the man for the job.