Storage Afterthoughts

Does storage get the respect it deserves?

It's a question worth asking. HP's plan to buy Opsware for $1.6 billion, for instance, raises questions about how far HP is willing to go to support storage as part of its overall data center automation strategy. (See HP to Buy Opsware for $1.6B.)

Even as execs on HP's M&A conference call today bragged about the importance of the planned merger, it was clear that storage wasn't necessarily top of mind.

Describing the growth of IT, Opsware CEO and co-founder Ben Horowitz cited server growth, not storage: "We're on the verge of the largest IT buildout in history," he said. In 1995, he noted, more than 500,000 servers were deployed, whereas last year, 7 million were sold. Labor costs have gone up sixfold to cope with the burgeoning growth and complexity of today's data centers.

But asked to comment specifically on the importance of storage, Horowitz and his new boss, SVP of HP software Tom Hogan, spoke straight from the script. "The explosion in digitized content is fueling the proliferation of storage infrastructure. There's inevitable growth in the trajectory of the storage marketplace," said Hogan.Politically correct. But it remains to be seen whether HP will really make storage a priority in its automation strategy.

One thing: HP has told at least one analyst it will integrate Opsware's Operational Management Database (OMDB) with HP's recently enhanced Configuration Management Database (CMDB). (See HP Hoists Software Upgrades.) According to Andi Mann of Enterprise Management Associates (EMA), the integration won't result in a single CMDB, but in a link between the two distinct products an approach that's actually favored by the consultancy.

"We at EMA think best practice calls for a CMDB to be a federated collection of multiple databases that work well together," Mann says. HP has assured him this will be the case between Opsware and HP.

What's unclear, though, is to what extent HP's CMDB supports a full complement of storage automation. Currently, it allows EMC and HP storage gear to be included in its CMDB. But what about other vendors' wares? And it's not clear yet whether Opsware will be going ahead with a product called the Application Storage Automation System (ASAS), based on its 2006 acquisition of CreekPath. If that actually happens, will it affect the role of the CMDB management? And if Opsware planned ASAS all along, did that affect its support of storage in CMDB? (See Opsware Gains CreekPath and Opsware Outlines Storage Plan.)

We don't mean to single out HP or Opsware. When it comes to automation based on CMDB technology, storage hasn't been prominent on the radar of any big supplier. (See Storage Left Out of CMDB Loop.) Clearly, that needs to change, given the kind of growth in IT described above.There are other areas in which storage seems to be getting less than its fair share of attention. While virtualization of storage and servers is at last getting underway, as shown by the recent deal between Symantec and XenSource, deeper integration seems still in the talking stages. (See Symantec Drifts Into Xen and Storage Virtualization Edges On.)

None of this can be laid at the vendors' doorsteps alone. When you point a finger at someone, so they say, three are pointing back at you. In many organizations, storage continues to be a luxury, in spite of the pain that results from refusing to devote adequate resources to it. (See When to Dedicate Storage Staff.)

We think it's time to change that. But new attitudes must take shape at all levels of the storage hierarchy to effect a real shift in focus.

What do you think? If you agree, disagree, or have your own take on it all, hit the message board below. Or email us at [email protected]. We're always eager to hear from you.

— Mary Jander, Site Editor, Byte and Switch