PRESENTATION HAS NOTES FOR EACH SLIDE

Rewriting the Rules for Total Cost of Storage Ownership

Michael Marchi Senior Director, Enterprise Marketing [email protected]

Agenda



Understanding Total Cost of Storage Ownership



Methodology for lowering Total Cost of Storage Ownership



Results of third party studies on NetApp and TCO



How NetApp specifically lowers Total Cost of Storage Ownership



Customer Examples

2

Total Cost of Storage Ownership

Factors That Effect TCO



Initial investment cost



Cost of downtime



Operational cost

3

Initial Investment Cost

Important Considerations



Initial cost of storage hardware, software, and services over 3 year period



Will data be shared today or in the future?



Will point and time copies be required?



Will disaster recovery / replication be required?

4

Single Copy Data Sharing

Traditional Disk sharing NT Data Unix Data 20 TeraBytes



20 TeraBytes Total Storage = 40 TB Single Copy Data sharing NT Data Unix Data Same Data with 50% Shared Total Storage = 30 TB

5

Network Centric Database Example

Windows Reporting Tool

Compaq Sun

UNIX Application Server

IBM DB2 or Oracle Database

6

Point-In-Time Copies

25 20 15 10 5 0

1.9

EMC Symmetrix

3.7

F880

7.3

Weekly 1 Daily 7 Daily 6 Daily 5 Daily 4 Daily 3 Daily 2 Daily 1 RAID Usable F880c

Assumes 5% data change per Snapshot

7

Disaster Recovery

25 20 15 10 5

1.9

0 EMC Symmetrix

3.7

F880

7.3

F880c Weekly 1 Daily 7 Daily 6 Daily 5 Daily 4 Daily 3 Daily 2 Daily 1 RAID Usable X 2

8

Information Availability - Cost of Downtime

  

Productivity

number of employees impacted time hours out times burdened hourly rate     

Revenue

direct loss compensatory payments lost future revenues billing losses investment losses

Damaged Reputation

  customers suppliers     financial markets banks business partners etc.

   

Know your downtime costs per hour, day, two

 

days, etc.

 

Financial Performance

revenue recognition cash flow lost discounts (A/P) payment guarantees credit rating stock price

Other Expenses

Temporary employees, equipment rental, overtime costs, extra shipping costs, travel expenses, etc.



Source: GartnerGroup

9

Measuring Cost of Downtime

Cost of downtime/hr for application data on storage subsystems X Hours of planned downtime (measure current versus proposed) + Hours of unplanned downtime (measure current versus proposed)

Storage Apps Servers 10

Causes of Downtime

5% 5% 30% 30% 5% 10% 15% Planned Downtime People Hardware Environment Server Software Client Software Network Software

11

Minimizing Planned Downtime



Planned downtime is a major contributor to data availability



NetApp storage appliances require planned downtime of ~30 minutes annually

 Compared to a 38 hours of downtime with a conventional solution  At a rate of $50K per hour, this translates to lost revenue of $1.9 million compared to $31K with Network Appliance

Freq. 2 Other 8 hrs NetApp 10 mins Activities Capacity Planning & Expansion Storage Reconfiguration Upgrades Performance Tuning System Changes New Systems Total Downtime 1 2 1 1 1 8 hrs 8 hrs 6 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 38 hrs 15 mins 6 mins - 3 mins 3 mins 37 mins

12

Minimizing Planned Downtime



Snapshots

  

Online Backup with zero application downtime

Perform backups from Snapshot will production volume remains online Store 31 Snapshots online with minimal overhead 

Non-disruptive upgrades



Transparent scalability



Adding storage (shelves and drives) with zero application downtime (and app servers too!)

13

Causes of Unplanned Downtime

Technology Failures

   

Less Components Redundant Components Cluster Failover SnapMirror™ for DR 20%

 

Multiple point-in-time copy with low overhead Fast Recovery of Entire Filesystem, Database 40% 40%

Errors Errors Source: GartnerGroup, 1999

   

Appliance Paradigm Ease of Management Plug-n-play Low Product Complexity

14

Storage Management Costs Hardware:

$0.35 per MB -

one time

initial investment cost

Management:

$3.50 per MB -

operational cost

per year

Source: SNIA, 10/99

15

Operational Cost Activities

     

Backup and recovery Supplying data where needed revenue and profit opportunity Management and operations costs escalate, can't hire skilled staff Scaling storage infrastructure Reducing latency 7x24 availability

16

Lowering Total Cost of Storage Ownership

Methodology



Select architecture that provides lowest TCO



Evaluate and select vendor that provides lowest TCO within that architecture



Evaluate utilizing lowest TCO architecture and vendor solution for all new project deployments

17

TCO

–

Architecture Choices

L O W E R T C O Server Centric Storage Centric FC-AL SAN Network Centric Gbit SAN

18

GartnerGroup

Total Cost of Storage Ownership Report

“NAS cost saving is

$13,650 per storage expansion

when compared to SAN”

19

GartnerGroup

“NAS offers lower cost per storage unit while decreasing systems administration costs” “The implementation of a large SAN requires significant initial effort and expense that *may* be recovered over time” Source: Gartner Viewpoint - NAS or SAN: choose the best strategy for your enterprise August 21, 2001

20

TCO Study by

Details



63 users of data storage solutions surveyed with all solutions running Oracle database applications



Respondents were asked to provide data availability service levels, quantify time spent on database administration tasks, and describe back up and recovery procedures.



Respondents were asked to provide product; implementation; support; operations & maintenance; and downtime costs.

21

TCO Study by

Survey Respondents by Annual Company Revenue

15% 6% 17% 27% 35% Less than $250M $250M - $1B $1B - $10B $10B - $25B Greater than $25B

22

TCO Study by

Survey Respondents by Industry Segment

27% 7% 9% 9% 15% 13% 9% 11% Government Information Finance Prof Services Medical Non-Profits Manufacturing Other

23

TCO Study by

Survey Result by Vendor Brand

17% 22% 21% 40% Compaq EMC Hitach Network Appliance

24

TCO Study by

Database Allocation for Application Types

Other CRM E-Commerce Web Content ERP OLTP Production Testing & Reporting Data Warehousing 0% 20% 40% Percentage of Respondents 60% 80%

25

TCO Study by

Executive Summary “The total cost of owning the Network Appliance solution is

70% lower

than owning SAN solutions from Compaq, EMC, or Hitachi Data Systems”

26

TCO Study by

Database Size & Growth – Next 12 Months

Compaq 950 100 Growth Rate 25% 700 210 30% Hitachi EMC Network Appliance 0 540 162 30% 610 305 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 50%

27

TCO Study by

Scaling – AVG Time Required to Scale Up by 200 GB.

Compaq 5 hours Hitachi 3 hours EMC 4 hours 30 minutes Network Appliance 0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

28

TCO Study by

IT Staff Utilization

Compaq Hitachi EMC Network Appliance 0% 50% 100% Value-Add Tasks Routine Tasks

29

TCO Study by

User Satisfaction and Data Availability

Compaq 4.2

Hitachi 3.8

EMC 4.4

Network Appliance 0.0

1.0

2.0

4.8

3.0

4.0

5.0

Highest Satisfaction Rating

30

TCO Study by

Data Availability

Compaq 19% 31% 31% 19% Hitachi 25% 57% EMC Network Appliance 0% 67% 50% 50% 25% 29% 14% 33% 100% Over 99.5% 99% to 99.5% 97% to 99% 95% to 97% Less than 95%

31

TCO Study by

Total Cost of Ownership per Annum

NetApp savings: 75% 80% 70% $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 Network Appliance EMC Hitachi Compaq Downtime Support, Operations & Maintenance Implentation (Installation, Training) Product (Hardware, Software, Upgrades)

32

Collaborative TCO Reports Say The Same…

33

TCO Study by

Data Storage Consolidation in a Windows Environment

Executive Summary “Across the board, based on the experiences and opinions of the customers surveyed, Network Appliance’s Windows data consolidation solution was determined to be the most cost-effective solution for optimizing data storage and high data availability over an entire IT enterprise”

34

TCO Study by

Data Storage Consolidation in a Windows Environment

Executive Summary “Based on INPUT’s research, total cost of ownership and ongoing capital cost advantages, as well as efficiency, availability, and backup/recovery benefits are virtually guaranteed in every implementation ”

35

NetApp Research on TCO

$3.5

$3.0

$2.5

$2.0

$1.5

$1.0

$.5

-

Lower Total Cost of Ownership 3-year TCO Comparisons

Server-Centric Storage Centric Total Investments Total Operational Costs NetApp www.netapp.com

36

Lowering Total Cost of Storage Ownership

Methodology



Select architecture that provides lowest TCO



Evaluate and select vendor that provides lowest TCO within that architecture



Evaluate utilizing lowest TCO architecture and vendor solution for all new project deployments

37

Lowering Operational Costs

“The average number of file restorations from tape each year per site is 144 ” – Strategic Research The result is lost productivity for the user and additional work for the IT Helpdesk .

38

Snapshot



Read Only images of entire file system



Very low overhead point-in-time reflects the state of the file system at the time it was created



Benefits

 

Perform Backups from SnapShot while production volume remains online Eliminate tape interaction for retrieving deleted or corrupted files



Store 31 Snapshots online with minimal overhead

39

Lowering Operational Costs

“The average number of full file system restorations from tape each year per site is 2 ” – Strategic Research

40

SnapRestore

Database Recovery Example

  

750 GB database and the entire database requires recovery Tape recovery time is 60 GB/hour Normal recovery time is 12 ½ hours + log replay time

 

SnapRestore reverts volume to same state as when backup was taken. Duration - 90 seconds Total recovery time: 90 seconds + log replay time Oracle Database Gigabit Oracle Database Instance F840 Oracle Logs

41

Lowering Operational Costs

“The average amount of system administration time spent on disk grooming each year per site is 248 hours.” “The annual amount of user productivity lost per site due to disk grooming each year is 3262 hours.” – Strategic Research

The result is lost productivity for users and IT administrators

42

Lowering Operational Costs

NetApp’s 100% Compatible Product Line - File system expansion Initial file system Adding disks with single command to expand file system Disks can be added to any open disk slot Simple expandability File system not limited by disk shelf Result:

Less administration Flexibility

43

Lowering Operational Costs



15 minute installation



No need for tuning. Self tuning appliance



Integrated RAID. No RAID administration



3 minute software upgrades

44

Network Centric TCO Analysis

3 Year

$2.00

Operational Cost Initial Investment Cost

$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$0.00

Compaq TaskSmart EMC IP4700 Sun N8200 NetApp F820

Source: Network Appliance

45

Lowering Total Cost of Storage Ownership

Methodology



Select architecture that provides lowest TCO



Evaluate and select vendor that provides lowest TCO within that architecture



Evaluate utilizing lowest TCO architecture and vendor solution for all new project deployments

46

New Project Deployments

Lowest TCO is with NetApp

47

Customer Examples

Network Appliance Customer Example 580 Terabytes Numerous remote locations 10 administrators 58 TB per administrator

49

Bank of Oklahoma

  

Deployment:

Two F740s, supporting 3,200 Microsoft Exchange users in five states

Initial Cost Savings of $70,000

Consolidated server tasks, thus reducing hardware expense & costs for maintenance, training, & personnel 

Reduced number of servers managed by 20%



Re-deployed 4 older servers for other tasks

 

“With NetApp, expansion isn’t an issue. We simply mount another disk or shelf. And we don’t need to take the system offline…a huge plus in the case of…our Exchange application” “SnapManager…has made tape backups the last resort. SnapManager takes a matter of seconds or minutes…to restore the data”

50

GTE

  

Deployment:

Two F630s; One F540, supporting hundreds of thousands of Internet customers

200+% increase in availability over local disk

Ability to scale environment to meet anticipated growth and add NT servers as needed for CPU capacity 

10 – 20% performance improvement for large file structures

  

“We have experienced no downtime since installing the NetApp filers” “NetApp filers eliminate this restriction [of large file structures]…we spend less time on administration, saving a considerable amount of money” “We have been extremely impressed with…the support provided by Network Appliance” “With the help of Network Appliance’s quota solution, we were able to lower our overhead significantly”

51

National Semiconductor

   

Deployment:

Nine filers, supporting 4+ TB of data and 700 clients on a 100Mb network with Sun servers

90+% decrease in restores from tape

 Users restore their own deleted files.

Snapshots are taken twice daily: Users are “never more than 12 hours away from the latest copy – usually it’s more like 2 or 3 hours.” Increased capacity several-fold without adding systems administrators

   

“The filers don’t have a complex operating system…so I do upgrades…myself in about 20 minutes” “We compared storage solutions, and there’s really nothing else in the market that does so much with so little administrative overhead” “We tested the filer and found it more reliable and simpler to administer than the other products” “I’m very happy with the filers and so are our users”

52

National Instruments

       

Deployment:

Single filer with 900GBs of data, supporting a full suite of Oracle database applications.

NetApp filers save at least 40 hours of downtime annually

Filers eliminate the need to spend time on disk layout.

With NetApp, storage expansion can be done with zero downtime

With conventional storage adding capacity resulted in 8 hours of downtime

“By simply taking a Snapshot of the database before [the developers] implement any changes, they can be sure that if the change does not work out…they can restore the database…in just minutes.” “NetApp filers are easy to install, are easy to maintain, minimize downtime otherwise associated with locally attached disks, and provide new flexibility…” “We will continue to consider NetApp filers…because [they] do exactly what they’re supposed to do.”

53

GTSI



Deployment:

1TB filer, supporting 500 users on business critical databases associated with Siebel applications 

NetApp for the low TCO

  Lower

initial investment

Lower

service costs over a 3 – 5 year timeframe Performance also key



Filer outperformed internal arrays by as much as

20%   

“The NetApp filer outperformed the internal arrays every time.” “We looked at a lot of good solutions from other vendors, but stringent testing and total-cost-of-ownership evaluations proved the NetApp system to be the best solution at the best price.” “Looking at [competitive] proposals over a 3 –5 year time period, we realized that the service costs alone were tens of thousands of dollars more than the NetApp solution.”

54

Continental Airlines

 

Deployment:

2 filers running multiple database applications with more than 4 TB of data

Filers saved almost 6 hours in backup & restore

   

For an application on a 150GB domain, backup & restore functions would each take 6 hours



Snapshots reduced the time required for backup & restore to 5 minutes

“With this [filer] architecture…we never have to bring an application down if there is a problem with one domain.” “The fast access to data and the overall outstanding performance of the filers, are extra benefits for us. The most important capabilities of the filers in our implementation are Snapshot, SnapRestore, and overall performance reliability.” “You just plug it in, turn it on, and you have immediate access to the storage – it really is that simple.”

55

Case Study: FANUC Robotics

     

Deployment:

2 filers – one supporting 500+ engineers for CAD drawings & 1,200 employee home directories; one supporting BaaN ERP application

Chose NetApp for the low TCO



Ability to

redeploy existing server resources

and

postpone the need for new equipment

in other departments –

“which ultimately covered the cost of the NetApp filer”

Performance also key



Improved application performance without a major hardware investment

“NetApp filers provide…capabilities more cost-effectively than any of the competitive solutions evaluated” “We have had rock-solid performance from [the NetApp] system” “NetApp takes ownership to make sure that we get the technical resources we need.”

56

Final Thoughts



Challenge is often to manage petabytes of geographically dispersed data



TCO is a key storage imperative



NetApp continues to gain market share



NetApp provides superior TCO

  

Initial investment cost Cost of downtime Operational costs

57