All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
11 Dec 2007
Rival vendors EMC and IBM are trading barbs over the subject of storage virtualisation.
The two firms exchanged comments on Monday after EMC unveiled its new storage virtualisation offering.
The network-based Invista system is EMC's offering for storage-area network virtualisation. It allows administrators to split storage hardware into virtualised systems, rather than be constrained by the hardware limits for each physical unit.
The new version of Invista was touted by EMC as a key component for enterprises that need to manage quickly growing databases or large amounts of shifting data on a network.
IBM, however, saw the news as further proof of what it says is an EMC lineup that is more hype than substance.
"There are companies that simply talk about storage virtualisation like EMC, and then there are companies like IBM that do storage virtualisation," an IBM spokesperson told vnunet.com.
The spokesperson said that while Big Blue has been advancing its virtualisation offerings, EMC has lagged behind. As a result, Invista is simply too little, too late.
"While EMC has been evolving, and evolving, and evolving their storage virtualisation story, IBM has designed, delivered, and continued to enhance our highly reliable, scalable, and robust storage virtualisation solution for years, with thousands of customer installs across the globe," claimed the spokesperson.
When presented with the quotes from IBM, an EMC spokesperson suggested a different scenario.
Not only is EMC not lagging behind Big Blue, the spokesperson claimed, but it is in fact IBM that has been playing follow-the-leader.
The spokesperson noted that several of IBM's acquisitions, including its most recent purchase of Arsenal Digital Solutions, either follow similar acquisitions by EMC or rely on technology from the company.
"IBM has been following EMC's information infrastructure strategy for quite some time," the EMC spokesperson told vnunet.com.
"It seems like IBM is looking at EMC as the prime example of how to do information infrastructure correctly."
Latest stories from Storage
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Sneak peek at the forthcoming glass-based machine
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Job Specification For: Software Developer...
A global Investment Bank requires a Project Manager to...
Web Developer, .Net Software Developer - ASP.Net, C...
Verint Voice Recording Support Engineer (Verint / Nice...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
EMC comments are off topic
The quotes from the IBM and EMC spokesman are both credible statements from their own points of view, however the EMC comment has avoided the issue of virtualisation completely. The IBM comments are directly focused on the success and market penatration of its virtualisation offering and I understand they have more than 3,500 installed sites using their SAN Volume Controller product in production day-in day-out. The EMC comments fire a shot about information management which has nothing to do with their Invista product or it's success in the marketplace. It simply tries to move the debate away from a subject they have little quality material to respond with. In reality Invista has only been deployed in a handful of their customers and the sales force seems unable to position their virtualisation offering for anything other than a migration tool to move data from outgoing hardware to new. The IBM offering is used in production environments as a key infrastructure element virtualising storage from many vendors including that of EMC ! I don't believe the current Invista offering to be as "open" (if at all) with regard to its third party vendor support.
Posted by: Jason B 21 Dec 2007