Thoughts on the Dumb Disk Fallacy
Posted Wednesday, October 14, 2009 in News 0 comments
Stephen Foskett's highly recommended blog has begun a series on Storage Truths, in which he talks about sacred cows and urban myths of the data storage industry. I've read his thoughtful comments on this industry for a long time, so am looking forward to the series.
His first post on the Dumb Disk Fallacy is on point. But I can't agree with the implication that:
- There's a lot more to a high end storage systems than raw disk drives.
- All the extra capabilities of enterprise storage systems create a lot of incremental value.
- Therefore people should stop talking about the high cost of enterprise storage, and stop complaining about the fact that the cost of some storage systems are many times the cost of the raw materials.
I know Stephen didn't exactly enunciate this syllogism. In fact, he didn't say that at all. I took some liberties. Sorry.
But in between the lines of what he did write, people may infer this line of argument. Even if Stephen didn't make this argument, others certainly do. I agree with points 1 and 2 above 100%. But the concluding point, I couldn't agree with (had Stephen said it).
Another way to look at it
Nobody who knows what they are talking about thinks enterprise storage should cost the same as a raw disk drive from your local low cost electronics bazaar (in Silicon Valley, that's someplace like Fry's). But that argument's a straw man.
The more astute question is why servers are so much more commoditized, competitive, and inexpensive than storage arrays. Do you know of a major server manufacturer that gets the kinds of margins on their gear that EMC or NetApp make on theirs?
Analyze a current enterprise storage P&L and compare it with DEC's or Data General's from a couple decades ago. The structural similarities are not coincidental. Why?
Mainframes and minicomputers
Because the proprietary minicomputer makers built their systems in a way that didn't allow introduction of innovative or lower cost 3rd party hardware or software. That kept prices high and innovation relatively low. The argument from minicomputer makers was that the only way to assure high quality and performance of servers was through vendors' vertical integration, proprietary control, and not coincidentally, high gross profit margins.
For heaven's sake, one couldn't possibly make scalable and reliable server infrastructure from cheap commodity parts you could buy at Fry's. Right?
Most people believed that back then. Does anyone believe that today?
Today, proprietary storage vendors make the argument that storage is so much harder than servers, so the principles that apply to the modern server industry don't apply to storage. Right.
That is a contention I believe can't stand up to scrutiny. And to any degree that it can, it is becoming less so by the day.
An alternate fallacy
Like all good urban legends, the Dumb Disk Fallacy has a grain of plausibility but doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
On the other end of the spectrum is what I'll cheekily call the Brilliant Array Fallacy, embodied in the 3 part syllogism at the top of this post. In many circles it's accepted wisdom.
Just like the wisdom of mainframe and minicomputer economics, back in the day.
Leave a Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.