http://jasonnash.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/cisco-announces-otv-the-private-cloud-just-got-more-fun/
I was going to get into another layer and Jason did. I lifted this from his site (above):
What OTV does is that it allows you to connect two L2 domains that are separated by a L3 network. Basically, it’ll encapsulate Layer 2 traffic inside an IP packet and ship it across the network to be let loose on the other side. In this way you can make two logically separated data centers function as one large data center. The beauty of OTV is that it does away with a lot of the overly complicated methods we previously used for this sort of thing. It’s really, really simple. The only catch is that you need Nexus 7000s to do it today. How simple is it? Here is all the configuration you need on one switch in your OTV mesh:
otv advertise-vlan 100-150
otv external-interface Ethernet1/1
interface Overlay0
description otv-demo
otv site-vlan 100
otv group-address 239.1.1.1 data-group-range 232.192.1.2/32
That’s six lines, including a description line. Basically, you enable OTV and assign an external interface. The switch, like all good little switches, keeps a MAC table for switching frames but for those MACs on the other side of the L3 network it just keeps a pointer to the IP of the far end switch instead of an interface. It knows that when a frame destined for a MAC address on another switch arrives to encapsulate it in to an IP packet and forward it out. The switches all talk to each other and exchange MAC information so they know who is where. This communication of MAC information is handled via a multicast address. Very simple, very elegant. All done without the headaches of other tunneling or VPN technologies.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Cisco's OTV - Overlay Transport Virtualization
I was taking a look at Cisco's OTV capability they are rolling out on the Nexus gear and my first impression was - wow!
The gist of it is: OTV is a new feature of the Nexus OS operating system that encapsulates Layer 2 Ethernet traffic within IP packets, allowing Ethernet traffic from a local area network (LAN) to be tunneled over an IP network to create a “logical data center” spanning several data centers in different locations. OTV technology will be supported in Cisco’s Nexus 7000 in April 2010, and existing Nexus customers can deploy OTV through a software upgrade.
Cisco says its overlay approach makes OTV easier to implement than using a dark fiber route or MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) over IP to move workloads between facilities.
“Moving workloads between data centers has typically involved complex and time-consuming network design and configurations,” said Ben Matheson, senior director, global partner marketing, VMware. “VMware VMotion can now leverage Cisco OTV to easily and cost-effectively move data center workloads across long distances, providing customers with resource flexibility and workload portability that span across geographically dispersed data centers.
“This represents a significant advancement for virtualized environments by simplifying and accelerating long-distance workload migrations,” Matheson added.
My opinion on why this is important centers around Layer 2. Layer 2 is where peering happens. Peering allows companies to move data around without paying for it. Bandwidth providers agree to pass traffic from one network to another via a cross connection between the two networks. Instead of buying a point to point OC-192 between data centers, a company would colocate IT gear in a data center on a peering point, buy a port on a peering Exchange like Any2, and cross connect to other networks who can move traffic around on other networks at Gig and 10 Gig (and up) speeds. The connections are in Layer 2.
A pertinent example would go like this:
An online gaming company colocates 50 cabinets in One Wilshire or 900 N. Alameda. They buy a port on the Any2 Exchange and set up 5 cross connections to different networks who peer at One Wilshire and 900 N. Alameda - Level 3, AboveNet, Tata, Vodaphone, and NTT as an example. As they expand into their global footprint, they can move VM's - workloads and game play - around from one data center to another using the cross connects, and not have to have large pipes, point to point, from one facility to another.
Another example would be a US based space agency I have done some work with, has containers that house a cloud offering (OS) in them. One of their satellites takes 100 pictures of the rigs of Saturn one morning and needs to distribute those massive images to thousands of constituents worldwide. In the past they may have purchased multiple 10 Gig pipes from their Center to a handful of hubs they interconnect with. Big money for big bandwidth which they need. Using this OTV technology, they buy a fat pipe from their Center to 55 S. Market in San Jose (3 miles or so), buy a port on an exchange that peers there, and now they can move those photos, videos, etc. to their other hubs who use the same peering exchange and not have to pay for the bandwidth between 55 S. Market in San Jose, CA and say Chicago - 2167 miles. This pays for the deployment of other containers where there is 100% green power that is cheap, can use peering to expand the footprint's network, and if a better spot becomes available, they move the container after offloading the workload to another container or two.
This is one of those game changing technologies in how people can deliver compute to customers. For large scale deployments, especially those that must be green and use wind generated power or nuclear generated power, this is a huge advantage. You know have the ability to drive physical and virtual movement of workload based on criteria other than - is there (do we have) a data center there.
I will be watching this solution closely.
The gist of it is: OTV is a new feature of the Nexus OS operating system that encapsulates Layer 2 Ethernet traffic within IP packets, allowing Ethernet traffic from a local area network (LAN) to be tunneled over an IP network to create a “logical data center” spanning several data centers in different locations. OTV technology will be supported in Cisco’s Nexus 7000 in April 2010, and existing Nexus customers can deploy OTV through a software upgrade.
Cisco says its overlay approach makes OTV easier to implement than using a dark fiber route or MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) over IP to move workloads between facilities.
“Moving workloads between data centers has typically involved complex and time-consuming network design and configurations,” said Ben Matheson, senior director, global partner marketing, VMware. “VMware VMotion can now leverage Cisco OTV to easily and cost-effectively move data center workloads across long distances, providing customers with resource flexibility and workload portability that span across geographically dispersed data centers.
“This represents a significant advancement for virtualized environments by simplifying and accelerating long-distance workload migrations,” Matheson added.
My opinion on why this is important centers around Layer 2. Layer 2 is where peering happens. Peering allows companies to move data around without paying for it. Bandwidth providers agree to pass traffic from one network to another via a cross connection between the two networks. Instead of buying a point to point OC-192 between data centers, a company would colocate IT gear in a data center on a peering point, buy a port on a peering Exchange like Any2, and cross connect to other networks who can move traffic around on other networks at Gig and 10 Gig (and up) speeds. The connections are in Layer 2.
A pertinent example would go like this:
An online gaming company colocates 50 cabinets in One Wilshire or 900 N. Alameda. They buy a port on the Any2 Exchange and set up 5 cross connections to different networks who peer at One Wilshire and 900 N. Alameda - Level 3, AboveNet, Tata, Vodaphone, and NTT as an example. As they expand into their global footprint, they can move VM's - workloads and game play - around from one data center to another using the cross connects, and not have to have large pipes, point to point, from one facility to another.
Another example would be a US based space agency I have done some work with, has containers that house a cloud offering (OS) in them. One of their satellites takes 100 pictures of the rigs of Saturn one morning and needs to distribute those massive images to thousands of constituents worldwide. In the past they may have purchased multiple 10 Gig pipes from their Center to a handful of hubs they interconnect with. Big money for big bandwidth which they need. Using this OTV technology, they buy a fat pipe from their Center to 55 S. Market in San Jose (3 miles or so), buy a port on an exchange that peers there, and now they can move those photos, videos, etc. to their other hubs who use the same peering exchange and not have to pay for the bandwidth between 55 S. Market in San Jose, CA and say Chicago - 2167 miles. This pays for the deployment of other containers where there is 100% green power that is cheap, can use peering to expand the footprint's network, and if a better spot becomes available, they move the container after offloading the workload to another container or two.
This is one of those game changing technologies in how people can deliver compute to customers. For large scale deployments, especially those that must be green and use wind generated power or nuclear generated power, this is a huge advantage. You know have the ability to drive physical and virtual movement of workload based on criteria other than - is there (do we have) a data center there.
I will be watching this solution closely.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Green IT shell game
I was doing research for an RFP yesterday about carbon footprints as they related to PUE, Data Center Operations, and IT resources in general. What I realized was that IT still looks at itself in silos, not systems. Let me explain...
This morning I got my copy of eWeek and on the cover was a pointer to Green IT Solutions - The Real Deal - on page 16. I'll admit I didnt spend a lot of time on the article because it was just like 100 others I have read the past few months that follow a simple formula:
Virtualization = Green
Um, not exactly...
Let me take you through a systems view of carbon in the data center operations:
The PUE of most data centers is 2.0 or higher. This means that for every dollar spent on powering servers, an additional dollar is spent on common facilities electricity to support systems. In the container model. The PUE is 1.2 which means 80 cents of every dollar captured for common facilities/infrastructure is saved. For a 500 KW deployment with a $0.10 per Kwh charge it means that in a data center with a PUE of 2.0, the cost is $73,000 for electricity. With a PUE of 1.2 the cost is $43,800. Savings per month of $29,200, and all of the electricity is green.
To produce a Kw of electricity from coal, 2.3lbs of carbon are produced (see http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html), so for a 500Kwh environment, multiplied by 2.3 lbs per Kwh is 839,500 pounds or 419 tons per month. Since wind eliminates 98% of carbon emissions, the net carbon footprint per month drops to 8.4 tons per month (see http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf)
When I look at a virtualization = Green example I see some major gotchas:
1. New equipment will likely need to be purchased. The manufacturing process is not carbon-light.
2. This means more mercury and other nasty stuff in the new equipment plus the old equipment. recycling gets you a couple of brownie points.
3. If a new data center is constructed, or leased, or expanded there is the cost of manufacturing, transporting, and assembling all of the components. If it's still powered by coal - you gained nothing
My point being Virtualization is NOT/KINDA Green and has a measureable but not significant reduction in carbon footprint. My personal stance is that you are far better off getting your utility to get wind energy into your data center and cut carbon by the boatload. Better yet, get wind produced power, use an existing data center someplace cool and open the windows when you can.
The other thing I found very amusing in my research was the data center with a LEED Platinum rating and was powered by multiple 50+ year old coal plants. It's like tinting mercury pink to make it 'safe' isn't it?
This morning I got my copy of eWeek and on the cover was a pointer to Green IT Solutions - The Real Deal - on page 16. I'll admit I didnt spend a lot of time on the article because it was just like 100 others I have read the past few months that follow a simple formula:
Virtualization = Green
Um, not exactly...
Let me take you through a systems view of carbon in the data center operations:
The PUE of most data centers is 2.0 or higher. This means that for every dollar spent on powering servers, an additional dollar is spent on common facilities electricity to support systems. In the container model. The PUE is 1.2 which means 80 cents of every dollar captured for common facilities/infrastructure is saved. For a 500 KW deployment with a $0.10 per Kwh charge it means that in a data center with a PUE of 2.0, the cost is $73,000 for electricity. With a PUE of 1.2 the cost is $43,800. Savings per month of $29,200, and all of the electricity is green.
To produce a Kw of electricity from coal, 2.3lbs of carbon are produced (see http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html), so for a 500Kwh environment, multiplied by 2.3 lbs per Kwh is 839,500 pounds or 419 tons per month. Since wind eliminates 98% of carbon emissions, the net carbon footprint per month drops to 8.4 tons per month (see http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf)
When I look at a virtualization = Green example I see some major gotchas:
1. New equipment will likely need to be purchased. The manufacturing process is not carbon-light.
2. This means more mercury and other nasty stuff in the new equipment plus the old equipment. recycling gets you a couple of brownie points.
3. If a new data center is constructed, or leased, or expanded there is the cost of manufacturing, transporting, and assembling all of the components. If it's still powered by coal - you gained nothing
My point being Virtualization is NOT/KINDA Green and has a measureable but not significant reduction in carbon footprint. My personal stance is that you are far better off getting your utility to get wind energy into your data center and cut carbon by the boatload. Better yet, get wind produced power, use an existing data center someplace cool and open the windows when you can.
The other thing I found very amusing in my research was the data center with a LEED Platinum rating and was powered by multiple 50+ year old coal plants. It's like tinting mercury pink to make it 'safe' isn't it?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Is there a CLOUD Acronym beginning to emerge?
I was wondering that this week as I started to see more expo/trade show emails starting to show up. The noise around cloud seems to be gaining, not subsiding, and it has me wondering why.
It also got me thinking that CLOUD was not a form of computing, but an Acronym.
Completely
Ludicrous
Offerings of
Unsustainable
Diversions
A year and a half ago, Grid changed to Cloud. Public cloud. Amazon and then Google started using (publicizing) 'The Cloud' and became legit. Then in an attempt to coin something new, 'The Industry' split into Public Cloud and Private Cloud, which gave us mortals something new to chew on. It was also something to divert us away from looking at the nature of cloud and what it really means. AKA Marketing figured out it was a way to create buzz and get their company looked at.
If you don't want to know what I think about the whole cloud thing, you should bail out now. Since this is my personal blog, I share personal opinions (right and wrong) with anyone who cares to read them.
The nature of cloud is that it has very little to do with computing and a LOT to do with accounting for IT spend.
The model has existed for years. Instead of building/buying a supercomputer I will rent cycles and schedule jobs on one. This way I get the benefit, and 'pay by the drink' based on consumption. I have also referred to it as a 'cash bar' or 'pay by the drink' model. You pay for what you use when you want to use it.
This was in stark contrast to the 'Open Bar' model where an organization bought (or in most cases overbought) their IT resources for any 'what if' scenario someone could think of. As a result, a lot of money is spent and a lot of IT resources go under utilized. Amazon filled a data center to process orders for the Christmas deluge, but then had to pay for the infrastructure for the other 10 months.
So Amazon came up with a way to utilize that infrstaructure the other 10 months a year - EC2 and AWS offerings. Now they could recoup some of that investmeant by leasing out their infrastructure in small bits to people who needed some resources. The public cloud became the next New Thing.
EMC did the same thing with Atmos - roll out a bunch of EMC gear and charge for it in small bits for people who needed storage. Carbonite is out there too.
So at the end of the day someone still needs to buy all of this gear, house it, carve it up, and dynamically provision and deprovision units of IT components - memory, disk, bandwidth and storage. Instead of leasing a 1U server, you can now lease pices of a 1U server, in multiple places and have your own cloud.
The shift then was to private clouds since customers wanted to own their data, and be able to secure it. The issue then arose, of how does a cloud provider secure data that is owned by users/customers? Isn't this just the same thing as a managed services provider leasing someone a server, and introducing per untit costs for data storage, network, and security?
At the end of the day, Cloud is about how you account for computing resources. It is moving IT resources from CapEx to OpEx down to the smallest untits possible. In many ways this is what data center colocation copmanies do today at a more macro level - they buy buildings, add electrical distribution systems, air handling/conditioning equipment, and then carve up buildings into cabinets, cages, rooms, pods, etc.
This is far easier to do as a single tenant facility vs a multi tenant facility because in a single tenant facility the customer has control of everything from the building to the systems, right down to the servers, apps, security - the whole nine. In a multi tenant facility you will see cages that go to the ceiling, some 8' high. Biometrics into the room and/or cage, and different locks on cabinets. The multi tenant facility must account for many more requirements that in a single tenant facility.
So what is happening is companies are rolling out their own clouds (islands) of computing, and if one provider can put marks in more checkboxes on an RFI, they get the business. The downside is that vendor lock can enter the picture, and without a way to federate the clouds, you need to hope your provider gets more islands to build an archipeligo for your requirements or you'll end up managing different island regions and you're no better off than had you taken space with a provider with multiple locations.
So I come back to the nature of cloud and ask - isn't Cloud computing just a different way of paying (accounting) for IT resources?
I will also offer that telcos are in the best position to offer a decent cloud becuase they have some of the most complex billing systems to layer on top of the equipment necessary to bill for cloud resources.
Thoughts?
It also got me thinking that CLOUD was not a form of computing, but an Acronym.
Completely
Ludicrous
Offerings of
Unsustainable
Diversions
A year and a half ago, Grid changed to Cloud. Public cloud. Amazon and then Google started using (publicizing) 'The Cloud' and became legit. Then in an attempt to coin something new, 'The Industry' split into Public Cloud and Private Cloud, which gave us mortals something new to chew on. It was also something to divert us away from looking at the nature of cloud and what it really means. AKA Marketing figured out it was a way to create buzz and get their company looked at.
If you don't want to know what I think about the whole cloud thing, you should bail out now. Since this is my personal blog, I share personal opinions (right and wrong) with anyone who cares to read them.
The nature of cloud is that it has very little to do with computing and a LOT to do with accounting for IT spend.
The model has existed for years. Instead of building/buying a supercomputer I will rent cycles and schedule jobs on one. This way I get the benefit, and 'pay by the drink' based on consumption. I have also referred to it as a 'cash bar' or 'pay by the drink' model. You pay for what you use when you want to use it.
This was in stark contrast to the 'Open Bar' model where an organization bought (or in most cases overbought) their IT resources for any 'what if' scenario someone could think of. As a result, a lot of money is spent and a lot of IT resources go under utilized. Amazon filled a data center to process orders for the Christmas deluge, but then had to pay for the infrastructure for the other 10 months.
So Amazon came up with a way to utilize that infrstaructure the other 10 months a year - EC2 and AWS offerings. Now they could recoup some of that investmeant by leasing out their infrastructure in small bits to people who needed some resources. The public cloud became the next New Thing.
EMC did the same thing with Atmos - roll out a bunch of EMC gear and charge for it in small bits for people who needed storage. Carbonite is out there too.
So at the end of the day someone still needs to buy all of this gear, house it, carve it up, and dynamically provision and deprovision units of IT components - memory, disk, bandwidth and storage. Instead of leasing a 1U server, you can now lease pices of a 1U server, in multiple places and have your own cloud.
The shift then was to private clouds since customers wanted to own their data, and be able to secure it. The issue then arose, of how does a cloud provider secure data that is owned by users/customers? Isn't this just the same thing as a managed services provider leasing someone a server, and introducing per untit costs for data storage, network, and security?
At the end of the day, Cloud is about how you account for computing resources. It is moving IT resources from CapEx to OpEx down to the smallest untits possible. In many ways this is what data center colocation copmanies do today at a more macro level - they buy buildings, add electrical distribution systems, air handling/conditioning equipment, and then carve up buildings into cabinets, cages, rooms, pods, etc.
This is far easier to do as a single tenant facility vs a multi tenant facility because in a single tenant facility the customer has control of everything from the building to the systems, right down to the servers, apps, security - the whole nine. In a multi tenant facility you will see cages that go to the ceiling, some 8' high. Biometrics into the room and/or cage, and different locks on cabinets. The multi tenant facility must account for many more requirements that in a single tenant facility.
So what is happening is companies are rolling out their own clouds (islands) of computing, and if one provider can put marks in more checkboxes on an RFI, they get the business. The downside is that vendor lock can enter the picture, and without a way to federate the clouds, you need to hope your provider gets more islands to build an archipeligo for your requirements or you'll end up managing different island regions and you're no better off than had you taken space with a provider with multiple locations.
So I come back to the nature of cloud and ask - isn't Cloud computing just a different way of paying (accounting) for IT resources?
I will also offer that telcos are in the best position to offer a decent cloud becuase they have some of the most complex billing systems to layer on top of the equipment necessary to bill for cloud resources.
Thoughts?
Monday, January 18, 2010
A Hit and a Miss - with Verari I mean...
Like few of my blogging colleagues I admit when I missed something. It's humbling, won't kill me and it's the truth - I missed on my prediction that Dell, HP and IBM would submit a bid for Verari. From what I understand they didn't. Whoops.
What I also understand however is that Dave Driggers did put in a bid for the company and will in fact be standing it back up.
So the container world has corrected itself. At least for this week. I am looking forward to learning more about HP's servers that will go in the containers later this week - I understand they have some cool stuff in the works. In fact HP almost always does - and I don't mean in a sparkly new 'het that's cool this week' way.
I will keep you posted, and let you know if I missed with HP's coolness too.
What I also understand however is that Dave Driggers did put in a bid for the company and will in fact be standing it back up.
So the container world has corrected itself. At least for this week. I am looking forward to learning more about HP's servers that will go in the containers later this week - I understand they have some cool stuff in the works. In fact HP almost always does - and I don't mean in a sparkly new 'het that's cool this week' way.
I will keep you posted, and let you know if I missed with HP's coolness too.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
What we can learn about disasters from the earthquake in Haiti
When I saw the news break last night, I was with a colleague and we were discussing the DR plans - or lack thereof - of Katrina, and wondering if there were any lessons learned that would apply to Haiti in the areas of IT and communications.
We tried to put ourselves on the ground and thought - what is most important immediately after a disaster happens and we determined that communication - Telephone and Internet were vital, but also very vulnerable in a natural disaster.
So after the earthquake happens, and it begins to be reported we envisioned that calls to emergency personnel couldn't go through, nor could calls from family members in the US and around the world for that matter. The cell towers would be laying in the ground, and the wireline systems severed to a large degree. Satellite phones would be the main form of communication - and in an impoverished nation in chaos - hard to come by.
So we began to discuss how communications could be deplyed quickly after a disater - be it hurricane, IED, earthquake, or act of terrorism and the conversation dovetailed into discussions we had been having with State and Federal Emergency Management organizations about this very thing. Let me share what has been discussed and shed some light on the communcations portion.
I will use Haiti as the example since it is releveant and unfolding now. The high level question was - how do we quickly set up a communications network to handle communcation with the outside world from inside a disater zone?
Our answer was that utilizing shipping containers to house satellite and wireless communication network gear made infinite sense. They can be stored and deployed from in any government locale - County, State, or Federal facility - so that you have a system that can be driven or flown to an area in a matter of minutes and operational in a few hours. It is a portable telco CO.
So in the case of Haiti, a fully operational communcations system - telephone and internet - would be housed in a container. Servers, switches, even satellite dishes to establish a connection via satellite to the world. There would be 4 of these systems/boxes deployed around the Island - in both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. If a particular group/agency wanted their own unit they could choose to have their own as well, configured however they wanted it configured, but there needs to be a set that is for restoration of basic service for the disaster relief efforts. Even if one was at the Presidential Palace and was crushed or inaccesible, there are still 3 others that could be brought in quickly to establish a link with the rest of the world and stem the chaos and frustration following the event. The other thing we discussed was to have a backup of key systems on other tectonic plates and regions so that you can at least have access to a web site and a form of broadcast for status updates, etc. In this case hosting a site in Miami or Dallas or Rio would be ideal as well.
I will be attending several meetings of Emergency Management Personnel all over the US this year as it is important to bring pertinent solutions to a forum and raise awareness of what can be done proactively. We are so willing and able to throw money at a disaster after it happens when for 1/3 of the cost it could be addressed and more importantly give citizens and governments assurance that those responsible for response have actually done their jobs by thinking through what may happen before it happens, vs. after it happens.
I hope the politicians will read this entry because for 1/10 of what the spend to get re-elected they could virtually guarantee reelection by being proactive about deploying solutions that help their constituents when they need it most.
My thoughts and prayers are with the survivors, the familes, the emergency reponse personnel being deployed - there is much grief ahead and my heart is with you.
We tried to put ourselves on the ground and thought - what is most important immediately after a disaster happens and we determined that communication - Telephone and Internet were vital, but also very vulnerable in a natural disaster.
So after the earthquake happens, and it begins to be reported we envisioned that calls to emergency personnel couldn't go through, nor could calls from family members in the US and around the world for that matter. The cell towers would be laying in the ground, and the wireline systems severed to a large degree. Satellite phones would be the main form of communication - and in an impoverished nation in chaos - hard to come by.
So we began to discuss how communications could be deplyed quickly after a disater - be it hurricane, IED, earthquake, or act of terrorism and the conversation dovetailed into discussions we had been having with State and Federal Emergency Management organizations about this very thing. Let me share what has been discussed and shed some light on the communcations portion.
I will use Haiti as the example since it is releveant and unfolding now. The high level question was - how do we quickly set up a communications network to handle communcation with the outside world from inside a disater zone?
Our answer was that utilizing shipping containers to house satellite and wireless communication network gear made infinite sense. They can be stored and deployed from in any government locale - County, State, or Federal facility - so that you have a system that can be driven or flown to an area in a matter of minutes and operational in a few hours. It is a portable telco CO.
So in the case of Haiti, a fully operational communcations system - telephone and internet - would be housed in a container. Servers, switches, even satellite dishes to establish a connection via satellite to the world. There would be 4 of these systems/boxes deployed around the Island - in both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. If a particular group/agency wanted their own unit they could choose to have their own as well, configured however they wanted it configured, but there needs to be a set that is for restoration of basic service for the disaster relief efforts. Even if one was at the Presidential Palace and was crushed or inaccesible, there are still 3 others that could be brought in quickly to establish a link with the rest of the world and stem the chaos and frustration following the event. The other thing we discussed was to have a backup of key systems on other tectonic plates and regions so that you can at least have access to a web site and a form of broadcast for status updates, etc. In this case hosting a site in Miami or Dallas or Rio would be ideal as well.
I will be attending several meetings of Emergency Management Personnel all over the US this year as it is important to bring pertinent solutions to a forum and raise awareness of what can be done proactively. We are so willing and able to throw money at a disaster after it happens when for 1/3 of the cost it could be addressed and more importantly give citizens and governments assurance that those responsible for response have actually done their jobs by thinking through what may happen before it happens, vs. after it happens.
I hope the politicians will read this entry because for 1/10 of what the spend to get re-elected they could virtually guarantee reelection by being proactive about deploying solutions that help their constituents when they need it most.
My thoughts and prayers are with the survivors, the familes, the emergency reponse personnel being deployed - there is much grief ahead and my heart is with you.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Why Cisco needs to buy Verari, and why Dell IBM, Rackable, and HP will fight for it
I have been covering the Verari story for the past several weeks, talking with folks close to the situation every other day. I keep coming back to Why Cisco Needs to buy Verari:
1. Protect IP
2. Support the brand
3. Have a container play in the market
4. Maintain a level of credibility in a market they said they were entering - servers
The other reason they should make an offer is because they have a financial backer who will do the deal with them and pony up 50-60% of the cash.
So why would Cisco want to protect the IP? The technology is solid, Verari has customers, and if they don't Cisco must now go after another hardware manufacturer to secure solid (and deployed) server technology to make good on its announcement that it was going after HP's server business to get market share inside the data center.
There is also being in a position to address what a data center is since the move is clearly going towards modularity and container deployments in very key areas. If Cisco doesn't have a story, their competitors craft deals so Cisco can't play. Ouch.
Support the brand - Verari, when it comes out of the ashes, will be recapitalized with Carlyle, Citibank, Sierra Ventures and others out of the picture. In other words the company has a running head start in that it has customers, a pipeline, a brand, production, the whole nine yards supporting the brand. Cisco believed in it enough to do an OEM deal, now they get to put a Verari server in a pillow case for a data center technology beat down of the competition.
Have a container play in the market. For people who follow this blog and colleagues in the data center industry know I have been a strong proponent of containerized data centers for about two years - since before there was a lot of buzz about them anyway. Having a container play is absolutely crucial - why? Because companies who offer high performance computing, serve civilian and defense agencies, are in the oil and gas business, and cloud computing companies are all looking at and/or purchasing them. There was a question on Linked In a few weeks ago - 'why havent we heard about all these container deployments?' and there are a couple of answers both of which point back to 'we could tell you but then we'd have to kill you'. People don't want their strategic advantage broadcast to the world. Nor does the military. So containers are crucial - not for companies who need a couple of cabinets, but for companies who need hundreds of cabinets - containers are cheaper and more secure hands down.
Maintain a level of credibility - this one is crucial. I cannot and do not see companies today making large announcements that create seismic events in certain markets, pull back after a few months and say - Ha! Just kidding!. Cisco could buy Sun's server business and let Oracle ravage the software side, and that's about it. There are slim pickens for proven server technology out there where ther companies don't already have a relationship with IBM, Dell, and HP - Cisco's partners and in many circles now - the enemy.
Cisco solves a lot of problems for short money with this deal. On the flip side Cisco's competitors can create a lot of problems for Cisco for short money - real and in the press - by buying Verari. They keep Cisco out of the Server Hardware Club for a few more months, which is a lifetime in this business. and with the tech refreshes that need to happen in the next 12-24 months, a misstep or delay means a few hundred million are at stake.
This one will be fun to watch...
1. Protect IP
2. Support the brand
3. Have a container play in the market
4. Maintain a level of credibility in a market they said they were entering - servers
The other reason they should make an offer is because they have a financial backer who will do the deal with them and pony up 50-60% of the cash.
So why would Cisco want to protect the IP? The technology is solid, Verari has customers, and if they don't Cisco must now go after another hardware manufacturer to secure solid (and deployed) server technology to make good on its announcement that it was going after HP's server business to get market share inside the data center.
There is also being in a position to address what a data center is since the move is clearly going towards modularity and container deployments in very key areas. If Cisco doesn't have a story, their competitors craft deals so Cisco can't play. Ouch.
Support the brand - Verari, when it comes out of the ashes, will be recapitalized with Carlyle, Citibank, Sierra Ventures and others out of the picture. In other words the company has a running head start in that it has customers, a pipeline, a brand, production, the whole nine yards supporting the brand. Cisco believed in it enough to do an OEM deal, now they get to put a Verari server in a pillow case for a data center technology beat down of the competition.
Have a container play in the market. For people who follow this blog and colleagues in the data center industry know I have been a strong proponent of containerized data centers for about two years - since before there was a lot of buzz about them anyway. Having a container play is absolutely crucial - why? Because companies who offer high performance computing, serve civilian and defense agencies, are in the oil and gas business, and cloud computing companies are all looking at and/or purchasing them. There was a question on Linked In a few weeks ago - 'why havent we heard about all these container deployments?' and there are a couple of answers both of which point back to 'we could tell you but then we'd have to kill you'. People don't want their strategic advantage broadcast to the world. Nor does the military. So containers are crucial - not for companies who need a couple of cabinets, but for companies who need hundreds of cabinets - containers are cheaper and more secure hands down.
Maintain a level of credibility - this one is crucial. I cannot and do not see companies today making large announcements that create seismic events in certain markets, pull back after a few months and say - Ha! Just kidding!. Cisco could buy Sun's server business and let Oracle ravage the software side, and that's about it. There are slim pickens for proven server technology out there where ther companies don't already have a relationship with IBM, Dell, and HP - Cisco's partners and in many circles now - the enemy.
Cisco solves a lot of problems for short money with this deal. On the flip side Cisco's competitors can create a lot of problems for Cisco for short money - real and in the press - by buying Verari. They keep Cisco out of the Server Hardware Club for a few more months, which is a lifetime in this business. and with the tech refreshes that need to happen in the next 12-24 months, a misstep or delay means a few hundred million are at stake.
This one will be fun to watch...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
