Nutanix

Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by GooSE, Oct 4, 2013.

  1. Urbansprawl

    Urbansprawl Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    571
    If you just put the pricing on the website then you wouldn't need highly paid account managers/BDMs/pre sales people/social media outreach gurus like the ones posting in this thread. No point trying to convince people of the benefits of self service when their continued employment depends on them not agreeing with you.
     
  2. OP
    OP
    GooSE

    GooSE New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    6,679
    Location:
    Sydney
    The thing is they don't sell direct to end-users. I guess an RRP would be an option, it's fairly unorthodox though.
     
  3. JoshOdgers

    JoshOdgers New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    7
    Finally the voice of reason! Well said.
     
  4. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    13,757
    How much cheaper would the product be if it didn't have to support this whole sales driven ecosystem? With everyone having their fingers in the pie (for what in some cases, is very limited, or even negative on the value-added front)

    What benefit do Nutanix (for example) get from it? From a customers perspective, The Vendor is just an impairment I have to go through to get anything done with the actual provider.

    Example
    Call Vendor for support
    Vendor calls manufacturer
    MFG calls vendor
    Vendor relays fix to me
    Fix doesn't work
    Goto 1

    We travel this merry-go-round for 3 or 4 times until the Vendor passes me directly to someone who can help, and the problem gets solved. At this point, the Manufactures contact goes into my address book :).

    Am I approaching it from the wrong point of view (Sysadmin rather than Management), and Vendors exist to take Managers out for Lunch/Dinner/Hookers, to try and shoehorn their product in over one that would be a better fit?
     
  5. OP
    OP
    GooSE

    GooSE New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    6,679
    Location:
    Sydney
    Why do you expect to buy direct from the manufacturer? Do you buy your network gear from the manufacturer? What about cars? Your breakfast cereal?

    I can understand if you're a small operation and do everything in-house, but if that's the case this product probably isn't within your budget anyhow. The fact is that most enterprises are paying system integrators for an overall solution. In some cases this may just be a monthly fee, no upfront costs for hardware at all.

    EDIT: Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic. Whinging about vendor/partner sales tactics can go someplace else.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2013
  6. Iceman

    Iceman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    6,647
    Location:
    Brisbane (nth), Australia
    Two things:

    1. There's nothing wrong with a tech company only using resellers. It means you only have to "sell" your product to a very small market segment who do the selling for you. ergo, you trade some of your profit for an increased market base you would be otherwise unable or have to make compromises elsewhere in your business to reach (probably on the product). But more importantly, it gets the name/brand/tech into your space - how many IT managers here have time to spend months researching/following garage based storage companies? You need rep to sell direct, you have to start somewhere. So go easy on them.

    2. Sales people are sort of a necessary evil - because technical staff (even presales) are often pretty lousy at evangelizing the benefits of a product. This is more important to day than ever before in the storage space.

    The concept of back end storage has evolved - it's growing further and further away from the "Buy anybrand SAN for a fairly linear scale of x dollars per IOPS". Companies like nutanix, Isilon, Nimble, Actifio and even the bigboys like EMC with Data Domain etc are desperately trying to get market share and it's encouraging great innovation - everyone has different ways to slice things in terms of performance with tiering, caching, load balancing , dedupe, etc and with cost in terms of how much maintenance you need to perform, how difficult it is to tune for performance, cost/difficulty of expansion.

    The problem is you're no longer comparing apples with apples, it's more like trying to judge a bunch of grapes vs a watermelon. You might know exactly what your business requires in terms of iops, but without sales people to explain some of the non technical aspects of the solution you end up judging it purely on the benchmarks and not TCO.

    What good is the solution that looks 100k on the initial purchase if you fail to realise you now have an ongoing cost of a 100k/yr FTE because that's the market rate of the additional guy you need to run the cheaper solution?
     
  7. Urbansprawl

    Urbansprawl Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    571
    It just frustrates me to see a disruptive product like Nutanix go straight to the traditional sales model. Nutanix is trying to put companies like EMC and NetApp out of business, so why follow the same sales model?

    There are reasons hosted computing ventures like AWS and Rackspace have meteoric growth, and part of it is they don't follow these traditional models.
     
  8. bondy_112

    bondy_112 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,801
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Iceman, Isilon is EMC now ;)

    Except that AWS most definitely has a traditional sales force for their corporate customers.
     
  9. Urbansprawl

    Urbansprawl Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    571
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against sales people existing at all (I am one) - just a mandatory sales mediated engagement as the only way to buy product. That model just doesn't work very well for a lot of people.

    If I'm a buyer and I want to go to full song and dance tender then AWS can engage in that model with their sales force - but if I want to spin up 20 vCPUs for a project then I can do that without all the hand holding, and without having to go through a sales process to get access to non comedy pricing (thinking about the Dell and HP website server configurators here).

    Anyway, as others have noted this seems to be the only way equipment vendors are able to go to market so I will leave it be.
     
  10. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    39,308
    Location:
    Brisbane
    You don't have to though, that's the point.

    I've used AWS in the last two businesses I worked for, and particularly the last one would do things at quite large scale. We never once EVER spoke to a human being when dealing with AWS or associated services. All online quoting, all self-serviced. Utterly brilliant. :thumbup:
     
  11. Iceman

    Iceman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    6,647
    Location:
    Brisbane (nth), Australia
    I was thinking more of the first 10 years of life.. but yes, as much as it hasn't been absorbed into the mothership.. it was aquired by EMC.

    Also, what AWS and Rackspace don't have is obscurity. I mean amazon didn't go call their offering "magic cloud services" .. it's "Amazon web services".. they're banking on the visibility of the brand. If you're already a household name you can use any sales avenue you like.
     
  12. Vow

    Vow Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    629
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Sooooo a month on now, is anyone else looking at Nutanix? We're about due for both a storage and host upgrade, and my sysadmin is pushing very hard for a Nutanix solution.

    I think what Nutanix have done is great, but for half the cost I can go down the traditional host/san path and get more storage and servers that are almost twice as fast.

    Nutanix rant and rave that their setup times are hours instead of days, but how often do we touch our SAN config? Haven't touched it in the past 12 months, possibly much more. It's pretty much set and forget.
     
  13. Daemon

    Daemon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    5,469
    Location:
    qld.au
    I don't have a Nutanix platform, but can you really achieve the same IOPS and redundancy with a "traditional" system? If so, I'd love to know how :)

    Personally I'm using a different vendor's system (aimed at the web hosting industry) and there's not a hope that a traditional system can match it for performance nor redundancy.

    I think we'll see a big swing against big SAN vendors as more distributed platforms keep getting better and cheaper.
     
  14. DavidRa

    DavidRa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,047
    Location:
    NSW Central Coast
    Same IOPS? No.

    Sufficient IOPS with more space? Quite possibly. And doing it the traditional way also means you can scale each layer independently. Need 20TB for a data warehouse? You don't need to buy 2 more compute nodes (the 6xxx series).

    A lot depends on which things you need to scale and when. If you're doing VDI, then compute and storage probably scale at similar times. If you're doing servers, then maybe not.

    The example I came up with that is (potentially) Nutanix' pathologically worst case scenario is Exchange Server.

    4 x Exchange Server nodes (Physical/VM) to support 1000 users; each with 5 x 1TB mailbox databases and 5 x 20TB archive databases. Those DBs only need about 1000 IOPS total. But go down the Nutanix path for this specific workload, and you have to buy more hosts than VMs.

    So yeah I can see why the traditional route might make sense.
     
  15. ebar

    ebar Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    Eric: One thing that gets me is that a lot of people refer to storage as SAN. FYI Nutanix dont do SAN, they do NAS (NFS). Some vendors do both out of the box, others do both "out of the box" but in reality they put 2 solutions backends in one chassis and call that "unified architecture". If putting a car on top of a truck is unified arch. then Im onboard. ;)

    SAN: is BLOCKS, ie LUNs via ether FC or ISCSI
    NAS: is filesystems via ie. NFS and CIFS

    So for example VMWare over NFS is not SAN. Lets get the basics right ;)
    Not everyone needs one or the other and some need both. I agree the storage world is about to change but some of the big vendors are onto it. I suspect that most of the smaller new storage vendors will go bust, some will survive and become big and others will be bought up.

    Eric: NetApp for instance have released clustered ONTAP. You certainly can have that level of redundancy and then some. Im sure it can provide enough (but mayve not as many IOPS as others) for 90% of customers out there.

    Im not saying its the ducks nuts or anything but I m convinced it would compete on tech specs only. I dont know about ROI. NetApp also have E series which is all flash etc.
     
  16. Jase

    Jase Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    196
    Location:
    Sydney 2081
    Netapp employee? ;)

    sounds like typical netapp sales talk
     
  17. ebar

    ebar Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    Nope. Is what Im saying true or not? Lets talk about my statement rather
    than me, Im not interesting.
     
  18. DavidRa

    DavidRa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,047
    Location:
    NSW Central Coast
    Seems what you've said is correct, but not highly relevant. This being a discussion about Nutanix, regardless of whether it's NAS or SAN, it's shared storage, no?

    And regardless of whether your shared storage is NAS or SAN, the same discussions about scaling, performance, sizing, planning, capacity utilisation, and performance utilisation apply, right?

    So. Yes, it's true that some workloads and functionality require shared block storage, i.e. "SAN". It's also true that some w&f just require shared storage "of some sort" i.e. SAN or NAS. Nutanix happens to include NAS out of the box. There's nothing stopping you from adding iSCSI SAN for a couple of VMs that need it - sure, you don't have the Nutanix extras, but you don't have the Nutanix VM overhead either.

    So ... if you can clue us up on what your point was, we can have an engaged discussion :)
     
  19. Daemon

    Daemon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    5,469
    Location:
    qld.au
    In fact, comparing to an all-in-one distributed storage and compute platform to something as "simple" as a SAN is a little unfair to the SAN ;)

    What Nutanix (and other platforms) provide can't simply be siloed into a NAS box or SAN because they're far more than that.

    All the posts are in this thread and seemingly against Nutanix and pro NetApp.... interesting.
     
  20. ebar

    ebar Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    Blocks in LUNs are not shared, they are exclusive to that host/application. That is the very premise of why LUNs were invented.
    So thats a NO, LUNs are not shared storage.
    Filesystems storage on the other hand (NAS) can be released and used by any other host. Again, this is per design and serves a specific purpose.
    Of course, at some level there is sharing of resources, CPU, RAM, etc. But that doesnt mean that you are right when you say LUNs are shared storage.

    I dont think you can do ISCSI on the NUTANIX solution. Its NFS only to my knowledge. So thats a no. But the guys at Nutanix can answer this better.


    My point was, lets get the basics right before talking storage. there is a big difference between SAN and NAS. I hope I have helped with this now.
    I am pretty confident Im more clued up about storage than you are, thats pretty obvious. And I am clued up enough to not try and teach others about their
    disciplines which I know nothing much of.

    Im NOT bashing Nutanix or any other vendor. I ll state once again: the storage industry needs a bit of a kick in the ass. And the Nutanix, Pure storage, Nimble etc are very welcome to some NAS and SAN $$$. Bring it on. In fact, I d probably take a job for Nutanix if I was offered one, thats how much I believe in Nutanix.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2013

Share This Page

Advertisement: