After I'd had a few years out of the storage end of the business, one of my clients recently asked me for recommendations about which storage vendors to consider in an RFP process.
After digging around for a few weeks, I came to a not entirely obscure realisation: despite their best efforts, storage vendors still fall into two distinct tiers -- storage solution vendors and service providers. As the technology gap between the two tiers has narrowed, prices have not narrowed accordingly, except in instances of sales. This indicates that, despite their claims to the contrary, something -- other than raw throughput and storage capacity -- creates and maintains the division. Understanding that something allows us, as customers, to make more informed decisions about what companies we consider during an RFP or other purchasing process.
A quick scan though the arrayed legions of storage vendors shows just how rapidly the technology gap has narrowed. High quality technology, ranging from propriety solutions to new iSCSI devices, constantly pushes the edge of what was possible "back when". Disk storage has finally become cheap enough to, in some applications, out-compete removable tape devices for archive purposes. Infinitely cheap storage seems right around the corner.
More importantly, the "threshold" of technology has reached the point where, except in extremely intense applications, even the cheapest solutions can meet the majority of a company's transaction and storage needs. Solutions have also become highly sophisticated in their interactions: with a little care, you can build systems exactly matched to your transaction/storage/recovery needs.
The vast majority of these products come from storage solution vendors. This first tier of providers works hard to produce innovative, quality technology solutions to a variety of everyday IT problems. They work within established or emerging standards to give people relatively interoperable tools ranging from NAS to tape libraries. The vendors and their affiliates also provide some "storage consulting", warranties, and usually on-site system repair if something goes wrong.
A small handful of products, almost universally the most expensive ones, boast marginally better technology. In technical presentations, they make much of small differences that will, for most customers, simply not make enough of a difference to justify the cost. However, where the real difference comes is in the services (equally expensive) and software tools attached to the product. By buying the product you gain the ability to pay them for these additional services. If you have terabytes of mission critical data with millions of transactions, these expensive services mean the difference between life and death; the other systems might handle the load during normal operations, but when something goes wrong (and it will ... this is IT) the downtime can bring a business to its knees.
These second tier service providers monitor your system in real time, respond to problems before they develop, and are right there with you when something catastrophic occurs. The up front and continuing costs can seem steep, but not when compared with the cost per minute in lives or in money accrued by the systems that need their help.
Choosing which is right for you
Which of the two types of storage providers you should consider depends entirely on a realistic assessment of your specific situation. Before you begin the RFP process, answer the following questions realistically:
- Do you have more than one storage system? If so, does it need to be consolidated?
- What happens when the storage system goes down now? If you are consolidating, what will happen when you move to the new system? What calculated risks will the company run if one or more of the systems fail?
- Do you have the capacity to manage the system for your uptime requirement yourself?
- Do you have the capacity to restore service in a reasonable amount of time?
- What other processes or systems will the installation of the new storage system affect?
The first and second question-sets assess the undertaking's scope. In terms of vendors, a small scope with low risk (e.g., the consolidation of several low-risk file servers) can easily be met by a storage solution. A large scope with high risk (e.g., the consolidation of several active business-critical databases and their development platforms) calls for the kinds of mitigation techniques available though the more expensive service providers.
The third and fourth question-sets assess your own internal capabilities. If you have a capable staff and a solid, tested disaster recovery strategy, you can afford to go with less comprehensive services and potentially less user-friendly software management tools. If you have large amounts of critical data but limited ability to manage it and the risks associated with it, a service provider can give you the risk buffer you need to develop those capabilities.
