In the past week, both 3Par and HDS have announced a 50% guarantee on reclaimed storage if customers move data from existing “fat” legacy arrays to 3Par storage or use HDS thin provisioning technologies. The 3Par news release is here; the Hitachi news release is here.
The 3Par guarantee is presented with a caveat:
The above is intended to highlight certain aspects of our Get Thin Guarantee and does not contain the full terms, conditions, limitations, definitions, and other provisions (“Terms”) of the Get Thin Guarantee. The Terms shall be contained in a written Get Thin Offer which shall take precedence over the above. Qualification for our Get Thin Guarantee is subject to your acceptance of a Get Thin Offer containing the Terms and satisfaction of those Terms.
This, no doubt is the legalese to satisfy the lawers, however it probably also holds the specific terms and conditions of the data to which the 50% applies.
Hitachi’s caveat restricts the 50% savings to migrations from RAID-1 to dynamic provisioned RAID-5, otherwise the guarantee is only 20%. Well duh. Moving from RAID-1 to RAID-5 alone gives a saving of up to 42% depending on how you choose to calculate it.
You may remember Netapp also have a 50% space guarantee (details here). I wonder how that is going….
It too had a number of restrictions on the type of data which would be classed as suitable and also required customers to implement the storage in a certain way.
Whilst these sorts of programs are welcome if they genuinely result in savings for customers, what we need to be wary of is clever marketing which in reality results in configurations that customers wouldn’t implement.
One final thought; Hitachi guarantee to cough up the difference between used and predicted savings in storage. That’s great (and I don’t know if Netapp and 3Par agreed the same), but there’s always a tradeoff between storage efficiency and performance. Will the vendors also guarantee that performance won’t be impacted?
One final final thought…. I bet EMC don’t try and match the competition…
- Netapp: The Inflexibility of Flexvols (10,227)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Storage Spaces (9,681)
- Enterprise Computing: Why Thin Provisioning Is Not The Holy Grail for Utilisation (8,070)
- Comparing iSCSI Targets – Microsoft, StarWind, iSCSI Cake and Kernsafe – Part I (6,035)
- Review: Compellent Storage Center – Part II (5,679)
- Data ONTAP 8.0 – Part III (5,170)
- Why Does Microsoft Hyper-V Not Support NFS? (5,092)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Virtual Fibre Channel (4,556)
- How To: Enable iSNS Server in Windows 2008 (4,548)
- Back to Blogging (4,455)
- 3PAR Continues to be HP Storage Cornerstone (17)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Storage Spaces (12)
- Netapp: The Inflexibility of Flexvols (11)
- ViPR – Frankenstorage Revisited (10)
- Windows Server 2012 (Windows Server “8″) – Virtual Fibre Channel (10)
- Rise of The IT Generalist – A Bad Idea? (8)
- Managing Microcode Upgrades (8)
- Review: AWS Storage Gateway (7)
- Enterprise Computing: Why Thin Provisioning Is Not The Holy Grail for Utilisation (6)
- Comparing iSCSI Targets – Microsoft, StarWind, iSCSI Cake and Kernsafe – Part I (6)