What's Up With Hitachi?

This week is Storage Networking World down in Dallas.  Many of us in the storage biz make the annual sojourn once a year for this storage industry event.  I'm leaving for the airport in a few hours.

And, as with every industry show, it's a great opportunity for storage vendors to announce new products, especially if they have a more technical bent.

For example, EMC announced not only the FCoE-based Cisco Nexus switch, but qualified host adapters as well.  If nothing else, EMC's announcement demonstrates to the marketplace that at least one storage vendor is very serious about the transition to converged data center fabrics. 

Not to mention improved SMI-S support.

I saw an announcement from Hitachi.  Now, they've been awfully quiet these days -- both in the blogosphere, but -- more importantly -- delivering new capabilities to market.

And, based on what they announced, it looked pretty bleak to me.

What They Announced

Most of the focus was on a new mid-tier storage platform, the AMS 2000.  Now, those of you in the storage business know that mid-tier is an incredibly competitive and fast-growing segment of the market. 

Unlike other segments of the market, you've got to bring your best game here -- each and every day.  Hitachi has been trying to play here for some years, with very little success.

So, many of us were expecting something big.  Especially given all the buzz that they were trying to create via their web site and videos. 

Well, the big day is here.  We, like many industry watchers, were a bit underwhelmed.

Now, please, understand, this is not one of those competitor-bashing discussions.  No, that's not really needed here.  It looks like almost a capitulation by Hitachi that they won't be a significant player anytime soon.

Let's Look At The Various Claims

The first claim is "up to four times performance" as compared to previous versions of their product.  For those of us keeping score at home, this looks like an incredibly easy compare -- they hadn't updated their basic product in quite some time.

Still no 64-bit architecture though, which is table stakes with the CX4.

The second claim is "the industry's first Dynamic Load Balancing Controller".  I guess it reads better in All Initial Caps, doesn't it?

This one strikes me as interesting on several levels. 

First, both EMC's and Hitachi's high-end arrays have been dynamically load balancing for many years. Nothing really new here.

Second, just about everyone in the industry uses MPIO software (from EMC or other vendor) to do load balancing at the server, rather than attempt to do it in a midrange controller.  Is this somehow better?  Not clear.

Finally, most of us storage geeks would characterize array-level load balancing as a controller software function, and not something you do in hardware, e.g. CX's QoS capabilities as an example.

[update: I read somewhere that the "load balancing" feature kicks in if controller #1 is more than 70% utilized, and controller #2 is 10% or less utilized.  A feature of questionable value gets even more questionable, no?]

Sounds like the marketing group was being a bit creative here.  Hey, you have to tout something with your new box, right? Just seems pretty weak to me.

The third claim is the "industry's first 3Gb SAS backplane".  Bzzzzt! Sorry guys, EMC's AX4 (also a dual controller design) has been shipping since Jan 2008, and sports a 3Gb SAS backplane.  I think we were the first major player to do this, but I'm not sure.

And then there's some filler stuff, you know, drive spin-down (already a standard feature on many midtier arrays), and the ubiquitous "Optimized For VMware" statement, but no real beef around things like SRM integration, or vStorage integration, or any of a half-dozen potential things that they could have done (like EMC has) if they were really serious about VMware integration.

And then there's a long list of stuff we could have expected to see, but didn't: virtual provisioning, enterprise flash drives, 10Gb FCoE or iSCSI, etc. etc.  Looks more like the sort of storage announcement you'd see from a server company, not a company that lives and dies by its storage products.

Too Little Too Late?

The only thing I can take away from this latest announcement by Hitachi is that it looks like they're not really serious about mid-tier storage, or are unable to invest appropriately to remain competitive. 

I'd also argue that they'd be better off cancelling the mid-tier stuff, and using the R+D to help prop up their flagship enteprise array line, the USP-V (also seemingly berefit in the enhancement and new feature department, if you read the other press release). 

I mean, really guys, array-level encryption?  Worried about people stealing disk drives from the back of the USP?  In world where most everyone wants to encrypt tape?  Or perhaps selectively encrypt a small number of LUNs, pointing to either a host-based solution (e.g. PowerPath), or SAN-based (e.g. Cisco and now Brocade)?

I remember times at EMC where we took Hitachi (as well as their distribution subsidiary, HDS) very seriously. 

Now, they don't seem like such a big deal anymore.

What do you think?

Courteous comments welcome as always ...

[update on Oct 15 -- we hear from Hu Yoshida!  I guess my comments coaxed him out of his blogging monologue, which is a good thing.  Go see what he has to say here.  BTW, Hu, you're free to leave comments here directly if you'd like.

More to the point, he (not surprisingly) picked and chose what he wanted to go after.  He didn't directly address any of my points here, but it's nice to see him joining the discussion!]

Comments

[Robert D]

HDS seems lost. They have an annual re-org it seems. They are not focused on a consistent message.

Still, the UPS is a great array many customers have a lot of good things to say about it. But like Chuck,

I don't know why they stay in the mid range market...

[Mel Tungate]

It is so interesting to read a blog on the product we just announced.

I invite Chuck to sit down to lunch or meet with me any time - I can fly to meet him, or vice versa. I would rather he have solid reliable information rather than what he might have deduced from his reading. And, admittedly reading our marketing material and discerning the truth is equally as hard as reading EMC's marketing material and discerning the truth about their products. Some of what he wrote here simply is not accurate.

He can reach me at my email address of mel@tungate.com . Yes, I am a storage geek.

Mel

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Mel

Not clear who you work for, I went to www.tungate.com and, well, it wasn't clear what your affiliations might be.

My suggestion? I'm not your problem, really. Lots of people came to roughly the same conclusions, so I'd offer that you and your friends at HDS have their work cut out for them.

You're welcome to share your thoughts here, though!

-- Chuck

[Hubert Yoshida]

Hello Chuck, sorry I was not able to catch up with you at SNW. Please see my blog at

http://blogs.hds.com/hu/2008/10/ams_2000_dynamic_load_balancing_controller_and_sas_.html

for a clarification of some of the things you may have missed on our AMS 2000 announcement

Hu

[Chuck Hollis]

This is from Chuck

I naively posted a polite comment on Hu's blog, assuming it would go through as is the case on most blogs.

Funny, thing, though. The comment went through when I posted it, and now is in "awaiting moderation" status.

Strange, isn't it?

But, no, I think it's still the case that Hu and the crew at HDS really don't understand this whole blogging thing too well.

So, let me share what I wrote:
-----------------------------
Hello Hu (at least, I think it’s Hu … )

Nice to see you join the conversation.

I can’t respond to everything here (sorry!), but a few areas I’d like to comment on?

First, the 900,000 number has no useful context that I can discern. I remember back a few decades when we interepreted MIPS as Meaningless Indication Of Processor Speed.

More specifically, are you stating that customers can experience 900,000 IOPS in a real-world workload and configuration? Or are we just talking engineering bragging rights here?

Second, I do understand the difference between high-end and mditier architectures. I think most people who follow my blog could discern that. I was just questioning the practical usefulness of such a “load balancing” feature in a world where MPIO is very common.

As you know, we sell a reasonable number of mid-tier arrays (#1 according to IDC), and — frankly — all the “problems” and “challenges” you cite appear to be — well — somewhat synthetic in nature.

Thirdly, no argument that you’ve got more wires on your SAS implementation that an AX4. If you read carefully, I was commenting on your claim of “first”, which I would offer needs a bit of qualification on the part of your PR team.

I also think you’re going to have a tough time trying to convince people that “SAS is universally better” given the FC design of the USP-V.

My sense of this is that HDS is trying to create a “problem” where none really exists. Fine, we all work with the hands we’re dealt with.

Best of luck to you all!

– Chuck
-------
Strange, no?

[Chuck Hollis]

This is Chuck again.

More evidence that HDS is definitely having trouble with this whole blog thing.

Check out this password-protected blog post:

http://blogs.hds.com/michael/?p=21

[Snig]

FYI Chuck, Barry (The Anarchist) has (or had) his comments moderated at one point too. "Hello Pot? This is Kettle..."

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Snig

I think you're missing the point.

Many of us moderate comments because we're tired of being spam targets. However, we try and pass through any and all commentary that's even vaguely on-topic.

We do this as a courtesy to our readers who may not be all that interested in new sources of Viagra, or get-rich-quick schemes, or the like.

Hu's blog had let my comment through, and then changed it to moderation. I think it's still in that category 3 days later.

Not only that, we've seen the bizarro behavior of Mike posting password-protected blog entries?

What do you think? Does this constitute generally accepted blogging behavior on the part of Hitachi?

Thanks!

[Snig]

Oh, well in that case, that's a bunch of BS. Way back in the day I posted a comment correcting Hu on a post he made. It went into to moderation so I made a post about it, and it showed up shortly after. It wasn't taken back down like yours though.

I have no idea who Mike is. Maybe he doesn't know how to use their blog software? I'm not sure why you would blog about something if you don't want the whole world to see it. Isn't that what email is for?

[Chuck Hollis]

Snig -- my point exactly.

As you can see from my blog (and other EMCers) we have all sorts of rancorous discussions, not all of which are entirely flattering to EMC. But that's just part of the fun, eh?

The password-protected blog post (Mike Hayes?) was a new one for me. And, yes, that's what email is for, unless someone forwards it against your wishes :-)

So it must be very sensitive stuff indeed ...

[Lee]

Really enjoyed these threads regarding Hitachi new AMS2000.. Just to add my two pence, I think its early days, but i suspect that if Hitachi are successful (especially with marketing) with their "load balancing" controllers, it wont be long before EMC have something similar.. Im sure they have done exactly the same with some of your latest "features" ;-)

Loved your comment in answer to "SAS is universally better" with regard to the USP, but i suppose they could say that SAS is fine for modular, and at $500 cheaper per disk, it could be a good arguement.

I think the battleground is starting to heat up, which can only be a good thing for storage geeks like myself. I look forward to the future :-)

[Chuck Hollis]

Thanks for commenting Lee

I think it gets down to whether or not "load balancing controllers" bring value in this space, or not. Based on what we've heard, it has the fishy smell of a cooked-up marketing feature, rather than a real advance in thinking that could make things better for customers.

Maybe it's a great thing, maybe it isn't -- too soon to tell. I have yet to hear from anyone (other than an HDS fanboy) speak to what problem it might actually solve, especially since our experience is that rarely -- if ever -- mid-tier controllers get all that busy in asymmetric way that the premise of a load balance buys you anything.

As far as SAS vs. FC et. al.? Drives are drives. In some places we use SAS, others FC, others SATA, and more frequently, enteprise flash drives.

It's hard to get overly religious about storage media ...

[soikki]

About midrange -array getting load-balancing on the controllers, I'd say "finally it's there". And I can bet that in the future, other vendors will have it as well. Not only HDS.

Why? The trouble about lun's being active on one controller only has been enormous. This is true at least with the EMC Clariion, which I've been dealing with for the last eight years. Problems have been ranging from HPUX -hosts trespassing luns like ping-pong from one controller to the other, for having to manually keep track of what controller thousands of luns are owned by, and do they stay there. It is not fun to manually manage all this.

Before code upgrades, all lun's also must be active on the default controller - manual work again to trespass the luns.

Biggest thing is the performance, if there will no more be work related to keep the controllers balanced...

If there is a possibility that the array itself takes care of all this, I'm sure that all customers very warmly welcome this feature. No one wants to have a lun that is "owned" by one controller. Don't overlook this fact.

Additional bonus is, that the failover -software does not have to know what type of array is used.

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Soikki

You sound like you work for Hitachi, HDS or one of their resellers. I'd encourage you to share your relationship to the vendor in question as part of your post.

Thanks!