Taylor's Take on Sun Storage

Tape's Dead? Heard that one before...

This article was e-mailed around Sun Storage just the other day: And tape walked quietly from the spotlight (applause)

I worked for a founder of StorageTek who said he first heard the "Tape is Dead" argument in 1987.  I understand the argument, especially with disk prices dropping, recent VTL growth and the entrance of data de-duplication.

But I don't agree with it - it's far too short sided, and usually the person saying it has not done their homework. The best approach is not to pit Tape vs. Disk - they should be used together to accomplish storage goals.  Makes perfect sense to me.  To see why certain vendors like pitching "Tape is Dead" articles - see Randy Chalfant's Blog.       

But to those who say tape will be exiting the data center, we have this to say: Tape's value proposition remains maturity, longevity, volumetric density, declining costs, removeability and scalability (and this is from someone who supports tape AND disk systems at Sun). 

But for those still pitting Tape vs. Disk, I'll put forth these comparisons calculated by our disk analyst Bruce Norikane and tape analyst Chris Ilg (calculations made from public website info and do not include software costs):

Which solution would you recommend for a petabyte archive?

 
To further illustrate this point:

• According to Freeman Report's Whitepaper, "The Growing Importance of Archive"...37.1% of all archived data reside on Sun StorageTek solutions
• This equals 11.924 exabytes (to be exact)
• Storing just 1 exabyte of data on EMC's Symmetrix DMX-3 disk array consumes around .97 billion kilowatt hours (KWH) per year (according to their website)
  
• So, if 11.924 exabytes of data were stored on EMC disk:
  • It would consume 11.5 billion KWH per year (enough to power the city of San Jose)
  • This would cost over $1B ($1,488,000 to be exact)
  • And you would have to burn 3,768,885 tons of coal per year to generate enough power

An insider's view: For my last point, I'd like to share an insider's view as to how a vendor can use market data to tell a story they want to tell. (credit goes to Chris Ilg for this great insight)  This is particularly relevant to the "Tape is Dead" presentations lingering out there.  Take a look at the below graphic from a customer presentation.  Both charts are based on IDC data - but the first chart is one you would see from a disk-only vendor, telling you that disk is converging on tape costs.  The second chart is closer to reality - the rate of price erosion for disk and tape is about the same.  The only difference in charts is the scale, the X axis - the first chart gives an absolute view, the second a relative view.  

 
So, as long as we need to store more data at lower system and power costs - Tape (along with cheap disk) has a life. 

Lastly, I love Randy Chalfant's take on Sun's approach to the disk vs. tape debate posted in his blog linked above: 

 "Part of our approach to this, is to lead with a business value
assessment, where we can look at the operational needs and practices of
you business, and then map the technology into a supporting foundation
for the demands of your business."

You can't do that if you don't have tape and disk (not to mention software, services and servers) in your portfolio... 

^{(Note: If you are a Sun employee, you can find more in the Market Fact Book section on our Storage Intelligence Wiki)}  

------- Update --------

Another disk-only salesman brings up the old argument, see:

• Marc Farley's blog & video:  Is tape dead? What do you use it for? 
  
• StorageStop picks it up at: Tape is dead, long live tape
  

Posted at 03:57PM May 30, 2007 by Taylor Allis in Storage Intelligence  |  Comments[0]