Telechargé par Jean-Paul Wagner


Sales Education
Justifying Symmetrix 3000:
Using The “Why EMC” Comparison Chart
An Audiotape with Jeff Allen and Chuck Hollis
W hat follows is an explanation of how to use the chart, W hy EMC Open
StorageSymmetrix 3000 vs. Conventional Disk:
W e’ve found that when we give briefings or present to customers, they love the
message: the vision is great, the strategy is right on, they like the value
messages. But when they walk away from a briefing, the next thing they say is,
"Now, why do I have to pay $1.50 more a megabyte for EMC storage than
someone else’s storage?".
The goal of the Why EMC comparison chart for Symmetrix 3000 is to help you
establish a dollar value with your customer that gives them the reason and the
justification to spend the additional money for EMC Open Storage.
You can use the chart in a couple of ways:
During a presentation, use it as an overhead to talk about soft values for all
categories and to “raise the issue of value” and get them thinking about it.
During a working session, sit down with your customer and put in hard dollar
values for each of these items.
There are a lot of items on the sheet, so it’s unlikely that your customer will buyoff on all of them. The goal here is not to establish buy-off on every category, but
to establish enough value that the customer leaves convinced that spending the
additional money on Symmetrix 3000 is worth it.
Let’s go through each item on the chart to give you a point/counter point on each
issue and how you can present them to your customer.
The first point is architecture. Symmetrix is an intelligent storage computer. It
has algorithms, it has advanced technologies, and it can do things that ‘plain old
storage’ just can’t do. This can be positioned in a couple of ways: additional
features, additional performance, or more importantly, a technology path that
helps them move forward. It’s hard to assign a hard dollar value to this, but
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
create a picture for your customers that says, “This is not just a bunch of disk
with wires coming out of it. This is something very different.”
OUR MOSAIC:2000 architecture forms the foundation of all the concepts and
capabilities on the W hy EMC chart we’re discussing. MOSAIC:2000 is more than
a marketing term. It is a legitimate architecture that enables us to change the
front- end and the back-end, and not worry about whether it’s 3GB drives, 9GB
drives, next generation technology, block mux or wide-SCSI today. W hatever the
next technology is, MOSAIC:2000 will support it. So, we have a multi-platform
Increasing Useful Life
Most people approach buying disks as tactical. They want to make a short term
problem go away. Buying a Symmetrix, however, is a strategic investment for
needs now and into the future. Because Symmetrix 3000 is designed to provide
mainframe-class capabilities, it offers a useful life of four to five years, like you
would see in the mainframe world. On the other hand, in the open systems
world, we are finding people are depreciating technology to zero within 12, 18 or
24 months. One of the driving factors behind this is the rapid pace of new
technology. W hen a new disk drive or new technology comes out, customers are
typically forced to walk away from their investments. Vendors drop support on
disk drives very quickly as soon as new items come out. Have you seen any of
th a t?
Look at PCs. The example of 386 to 486 to Pentium to P6. Or look at multiple
generations of HP architecture. If the system is no longer supported after 2
years, you need to get your customer to acknowledge that. “Look, Mr. Customer,
with Symmetrix, you can support it four to five to six years, and with your storage
its 1 or 2 or 3 years.” All you need to do is get them to support that. Then you
establish a price that they are spending for storage. Let’s say they are spending
a half a million dollars for storage. If you can amortize half a million dollars of
storage for over five years, that’s $100,000 a year versus $250,000 for just two
years. So that’s a huge savings you can justify right there in tangible goods. All
you have to do is ask your customer and get an agreement with him and get a
number down in the column on the right hand side.
Increased Performance
The next point on the chart, Increased Performance, plays a lot of different
ways. Root fact is that a Symmetrix, in most applications, will dramatically
increase performance. And that has a different spin on values. You can do more
work in a shorter amount of time; you can save money on upgrades. So we’re
going to examine each of these as we go through it. So, how much of a
performance increase will you see? It varies. W orst case, we’ve seen 50%
improvements. These climb all the up to two times, three times four times... up
to eight times the performance measured at the application level. You have to
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
ask your customer, “W hat is that going to buy you?” And we’ll look at it a
couple of different ways.
You can take core business processes like month-end closes and batch runs
and compress them into much smaller amounts of time, but the tough part I’ve
found is getting people to quantify the value of that time: “W hat’s it worth to
Think of some of the examples used in the Business Impact Profiles; the key
here is to establish the value. One of our retailing customers was able to stay in
business two days longer at the end of their quarter and process more of their
work. That has tangible, bottom line dollar relief for that customer. They felt that
was worth over $20 million to the bottom line at the end of the year. Now, all you
have to do is get your customer to say, “No, it’s not worth $20 million; it’s only
worth $2 million,” and you’ve got them nailed. So the issue here is to establish a
value. You have to dig and find out what their application is and what you can do
to add value by increasing performance.
Use Smaller Systems
If they can’t look at the value of the business process, maybe they can get by
with a smaller system or, conversely put, “You may be looking at a CPU
upgrade, Mr. Customer. Since I’m dramatically improving your performance, you
can either think in terms of a smaller Sequent, a smaller Sun, something other
than a T-500 from HP and probably get better performance from that small box
simply because you now have better I/O.” So you have to ask the question, ”Are
you looking at upgrading your CPUs any time soon?” That money needs to go to
us because now you don’t have to do it. “Are you looking at anything in the area
of downsizing existing servers? Could you potentially consolidate onto one
server instead of having multiples?” Keep in mind that savings cascade. If I get
into smaller boxes or fewer boxes, not only do I save on hardware, maintenance
comes down. Software licenses come down. Management overhead comes
down. So you can take that one smaller box concept and spin off three or four
different savings streams for the customer.
A customer doesn’t necessarily know the size of the system they need. W hat’s
the traditional answer from a system vendor when they say “I need more
performance”? They say, “You need more memory and you need more CPU.” If
you take a look at an HP T-500, a system at $90,000 per CPU, that’s a lot of
money. Take a look at one of the benchmarks we just ran. W e took a T-500 with
four CPUs and ran the same application using Symmetrix on a single-processor
I-70 HP. W e went from 345 rows per second to 7500 rows per second. W hat we
found out is that you don’t necessarily need the size of the system you thought
you needed. Now, if you think about being able to defer an upgrade for
processors, think of it from a financial perspective. Three CPUs at $90,000
apiece is $270,000. If you can defer those three CPUs for a period of one or two
years, you have the use of that money and, at the end of two years, those CPUs
don’t cost $90,000 apiece. They cost 30% less per year. So at the end of two
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
years, instead of spending $270,000, you may be spending $185,000, plus
having the use of the money, plus deferring an upgrade, and being able to
spend within your budget to get the storage. So the ability to defer an upgrade or
use a smaller system has tangible value to you immediately and you can justify
that number to a customer right on this sheet.
Save System Slots
It’s not just the hardware. Don’t forget everything else that comes with it: it’s the
software, it’s the maintenance, it’s the labor. But there’s another way to look at
this, too. Very often as people get into larger and larger systems they find
themselves getting squeezed on slots. W hy is that? They can plug in four to six
drives on a single SCSI controller. If you want more storage, you need more
controllers. You need more slots. W ell, if you look at Sequent’s product line,
what they sell you is slots. The little one, the medium one and the big one all
have different numbers of slots. Same with HP, IBM and everybody else. So if
the customer has a decision support application, you’ve got a handful of people
that want to access a large amount of storage. Do you really need a maximal
system or do you want to be able to plug lots and lots of storage onto a much
smaller system? So look at the value of a system slot. W e ran into a lot of
customers that are either, a) looking at an upgrade just to plug in storage or, b)
just can’t plug it all in and are facing very expensive alternatives. You always
have to ask the question, “Are you mirroring?” because, remember, when you
mirror on a normal UNIX you’re using twice as many slots. That’s a real problem.
So, we’ve been able to go to a number of customers and say “W ell, with this
architecture, how big a system do you need now?”
W e have an example. W e had a customer in a few weeks ago with a large SP2
with 104 nodes. The customer said, “I have two problems. One of them is I have
all these channels I have to connect and all the cabling which is a nightmare to
connect up all the nodes. The other problem is that IBM said if I want more
performance what I have to add another 256MB of memory to all 104 nodes.” I
asked the question, “W ell, what’s the price tag on that?” and they said $3 million.
They still had to buy the storage as well. So I asked the obvious question: “If you
could do that for $3 million of storage and not have to put the additional memory
in and perhaps even reduce the number of CPUs that were in that system and
reduce the number of slots you need, what’s that worth? On an IBM SP2 you
can put 15 nodes in a rack before you have to go to the next rack. W ell, what’s it
worth if I save a rack, save all those nodes. There’s tremendous value there.
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
Save on System Memory
And that brings us to our next point. In addition to saving system slots, you can
also save on system memory. Again, conventional UNIX wisdom is, “If it’s
running slow, throw more memory at it.” W ell, there are a couple of problems
with that. First of all, UNIX is volatile. UNIX cache can’t be used for writes, at
least not safely; and UNIX cache tends to be very, very limited and not used too
intelligently. Also, if you max out one of these UNIX boxes with two gigs of RAM,
that memory is not available to all the other systems on your floor. So we’ve
been able to make the point that, because we have such a large, shareable,
non-volatile cache in the Symmetrix, you can get by with considerably less
memory on all of your UNIX boxes. In a high performance environment, you may
take half of your system memory or more and turn it over to buffers and cache.
In the Symmetrix environment, you may be able to get away with only 15% to
20% of your memory used for UNIX buffers and cache. On a large system,
you’re saving 256MB of memory, maybe as much as 512MB of memory. And
again, over multiple systems, this can really add up.
Enable Re-Usable Storage
But let’s just draw the line on making smaller boxes and making them run faster.
Let’s step back and take a look at this whole concept of re-useable storage. This
is where we really tend to shine because, although a lot of people may be able
to make performance claims, we’ve found that we’re just about the only ones in
the business who can enable this concept of vendor-independent, shareable
storage. So let’s take the first point: the ability to re-use storage. In other words,
if I have a platform on my floor today, what can I do with the storage tomorrow?
So I typically ask the question, “W hat was the fastest UNIX processor last year
at this time?” I think you’ll get some answers. “W ell, what’s the fastest UNIX
processor today? How about twelve months from now?” All you have to do is get
them to agree that it might be a different platform and you get the point across.
Nobody wants to walk away from a storage investment.
But there are some real examples behind this, too. Take a look at UNIX in
general. Aside from the fact that servers come and go every 18 to 24 months or
every 36 months, there are other things too. In the UNIX business, most
customers start pilot applications. And they’ll start with development, for
example, on a small Sun because they don’t want to spend a tremendous
amount of money on that  but they still have to pay for that system. They may
go to production on an SP2 or a T-500 or on a Sequent or any other machine.
By having re-usable storage they can save their investment in that storage and
continue into production and continue further development. W ithout being able
to reuse storage their investment is lost and, therefore, they lose all the value in
time and money and effort that’s been put into utilizing that storage in the first
place. So we’re seeing a real value in being able to reuse storage. I find this
point to be exceptionally interesting.
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
Think about the slide that we typically talk about as the before and after
The “Before” piece says each server has its own storage. The EMC model
shows multiple servers connected to the same storage system.
I talked to Oracle sometime ago and I asked Oracle the question, “How much
storage do you need to reorganize your files twice, three times a year or even
monthly?” Oracle said, “Thirty percent of the storage is devoted to
reorganization.” So if you imagine now having four separate servers each
100GB and each with 30GB devoted to reorganization. That’s 120GB spread
among those four servers. The moment I put those four servers on a
consolidated storage solution, I no longer need all 120GB, I only need 30GB and
I can reorganize each server, one at a time, one after the other and have a hard,
tangible savings of 90GB of storage in that example. And that’s because the
storage is re-useable and I can reconfigure and reallocate the storage as I
Allow Storage Sharing
That’s kind of a double benefit between the reusable concept, in other words,
every platform on your floor, and this concept of storage sharing. Now, I want to
caution you today that, the manageability aspect of Symmetrix makes this
reallocation of storage a little difficult unless you put some forethought into it.
The current issue we face today is that if someone wants to change their whole
Symmetrix configuration, we basically have to have the customer engineer come
out and do it. That will be changing soon, so I’m going to stick to the message.
There are peak demands and dips in all of this: database reorg, end of the
month closing, a project that doesn’t work out and you want to allocate the
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
storage somewhere else. The more platforms you have on your floor, the more
value you’ll see out of shared storage. One box, there’s no value; two, there’s
some. If you see four or more boxes you can start naming 50, 60, 100GB
numbers that they can save just because they can share it. It’s a very compelling
W e had a customer that had four HP servers. Each one of these HP servers had
the same data base on it. The customer would download the same data to all
four of the servers; it took 72 hours to get all the data down. W ith the strategy
we put in place, instead of having the servers duplicate their data four times, we
put all four servers onto the same system, downloaded the data once in only
seven hours. In this decision support environment, all four servers could read
the same data and that’s exactly what they wanted to do. So they had the ability
to share storage. They had the ability to consolidate it and they had significant
performance improvement by going from 72 hours to 7 hours of downloading.
And that was done every week.
You reduce the amount of time it takes significantly to download the data and
you increase the reliability in terms of having to maintain four separate systems
and maintain the data and handle all four of those at the same time.
You can look at actually shrinking the total storage needed because you can
share it. You can look at the risk factor saying that, if something doesn’t work
out, I don’t walk away from the storage or you can look at it in some cases as
time and labor savings because you’ve compressed the business process that
had to use a network or tape that now can use shared disk in new and creative
Increasing Useable Storage
The next selection mentions Increasing Useable Storage. In the mainframe
world, you can’t fill your disks all the way. The idea is that if you fill your disks
you’re maximizing head motion and performance suffers. The same thing holds
true in UNIX. If you have a high performance application typically what you’ll do
is use the sweet spot in the middle of the disk and avoid the outsides, using only
50, 60, up to 70% of the disk. So what we find in an ICDA environment with
Symmetrix is that, yes, you can fill your disk. W ell, what’s this 35% of increased
storage worth to you? W ell, its worth a couple of things. First of all, if somebody
wants 300GB of storage, you can offer them 200 and change and say, “W ell,
look, you can fill mine up all the way.” The second is, you can translate it into
performance. No longer do you have to add more slots, more channels, more
disks, more maintenance just to get an equivalent level of performance. W e’ve
talked about this with a few people and, lo and behold, they’re mainframers, they
shake their heads up and down and say it’s true.
I had a similar experience also with someone who was in the UNIX side of the
house and had come from the mainframe side. They challenged me a little bit
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
and they said, no, they don’t fill it up to 95%; they fill it up to 85%. And so I said,
“All right, well, if we can fill it up to 95%, what’s 10% worth? And if you’re buying
1/2 million dollars worth of storage is that worth something?” So once again, you
start with a number and you set a stake in the ground and you say, “W e can do
it at 95%; you can do it at 60%” and let the customer come back. Remember,
the whole goal is to put a stake in the ground and let the customer come back to
you with a different number. You don’t want to start from the bottom up; you
want to start from the top and say, “This is the number we think it costs and this
is the savings to you and let the customer come back and say, “No, it’s not a
hundred thousand dollars savings; its a $45,000 savings” and now you have a
tangible number to work with.
Decreasing Management Resource
That’s a good piece of advice. Let’s talk about Decreasing Management
Resource. You can actually look at it two ways: Everybody knows people are
expensive. W e use a round number of $100,000 fully loaded cost per person per
year. If they already have a Symmetrix on the floor, they don’t need to increase
their management staff. The same management staff that they have in place
today can be used to manage their open systems storage along side their
mainframe storage. There’s no need to add headcount. If you’re going to be
managing a terabyte of new storage on the floor, someone’s going to have to
configure it, manage it, protect it, administer it. So that’s one way I’ve discussed
that management resource argument. The second way I’ve talked about it is for
someone who doesn’t already have a Symmetrix on the floor and the way I tell
that side is, “Hey, you don’t need someone on site all the time to handle a disk
crash. W e handle that remotely with continuous availability. You don’t need
someone on staff who can diagnose problems. W e do that remotely. This is
such a hassle-free continuous availability environment you can take your head
count and use it for more productive things but you certainly won’t be looking at
adding additional headcount just to manage storage.
On this issue, customers have different perspectives, such as “There’s no effect
on us at all” and “W e don’t mind changing the headcount. It has no impact on
us.” And I think the issue there is the whole goal of this chart is to look for the
ones that the customer buys off on and to look for the ones that they don’t buy
off on. So we’re finding there are some customers who absolutely feel this is a
very important aspect for them and others that don’t think it’s that important. The
whole goal is for you to set the stake in the ground.
Support Continuous Availability
Decreased management resource goes hand in hand with Supporting
Continuous Availability. W e have found that, with Symmetrix, there’s a whole
different paradigm here. In the earlier model, if the server were to go down, the
storage goes down, the application is out. In the model with EMC, EMC keeps
the storage running. Most people who think about continuous availability think
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
about RAID-1 or RAID-5. But they don’t think about the impact of what it takes to
recover and get the system back up. Anybody who’s been in the UNIX business
long enough knows that UNIX is not the most reliable system in the world. But if
we can keep our storage up and running, time to recover and the ability to keep
the applications running significantly longer is to our advantage and is worth a
significant amount of money. W hat is it worth to your customer if they don’t have
an outage because we keep the storage up and running?
Some people are very concerned about having problems. Other people, for
whatever reason, haven’t seen any issues. But just today in the EBC when I was
giving a customer briefing, this guy said, “You know, it was just a holiday
weekend for everybody else but me. I was in the shop, I was restoring tapes, I
was fixing broken disks. I hate my storage.” Timing may have something to do
with this. Sometimes you’re successful at creating fear, uncertainty and doubt
about the storage outage that hasn’t happened but if they’ve been in this for a
while, they’ve experienced this pain and will do anything to avoid it. And there’s
a hard cost in terms of business process interruption. There’s also a soft cost
which I’ll call hassle factor: the unscheduled, unplanned emergency which no
one likes.
There’s another twist to this, too. It goes hand in hand with the sharing storage.
Say a customer has a homogenous environment and multiple servers all
connected to the same storage system. In the event a server actually goes
down, they can move that application over to another server because all the
data, all the resources, are sitting on that same storage system as opposed to
having storage separated server by server. They can actually get back up and
running much faster than they could if they had individual servers with storage.
Remote Mirroring
Remote Mirroring can be a difficult and complex topic. The idea in the
mainframe world is of business continuance. If your mainframe goes down we
have an easy way for you to get back up again at a remote site. The problem in
the UNIX world is that very, very few UNIX sites that we’ve met have any
provision for disaster recovery and those that do typically don’t manage this
themselves. They’re going with a Comdisco or other third party disaster recovery
outfit. So what we usually have to do is draw a picture of OK, it’s two years out,
this is mission critical and now you do have a business continuance issue. If
they’re already a Symmetrix customer they’re probably already looking at SRDF
to handle their mainframe requirements. Being able to say, “I can do it for open
systems, too,” has a value associated with it. The other thing I wanted to spin
around was that, if you had to do real time, synchronized business continuance
things with, for example, Sybase Replicator or Oracle Replication, those things
just don’t work. Nobody can make them work right and there’s always these big
windows of exposure. So our problem, is that we have to draw a picture out in
the future when the customer is going to have to do this because they’re not
doing it today.
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
There are two situations for which this is not a problem. One, if we’re talking to
our mainframe customers who are making decisions for open systems, they buy
off immediately on the value and the importance of this. Understand that so
many departmental servers are coming back to the control of IS and they’re
concerned about this. It has an impact; if not a financial one, an emotional one
to the customer. And the other one is that if you find a customer that in fact is
already doing continuation services with a Sunguard, or a Comdisco, then you
have a home run sitting right there on the spot; they would love to figure out how
they support larger databases remotely. Today, backing them up is a real
problem and the ability to do remote mirroring is one way they look at providing
a backup. Even though we call it a business continuation service, they look at it
as a way of keeping their systems on-line in a remote location.
Increase CPU Vendor Leverage
In the past few weeks this next concept has raised a few eyebrows. It turns out,
in the dynamics of dealing with vendors, like the HPs and the Suns and the
IBMs, when you take storage out of the equation they have to compete on the
value of the system and the operating system they’re selling. Again, you’re
forcing them to unbundle their offerings. And, we’re finding that if a customer is
smart about that they can drive a better deal with their system vendor.
Driving a better deal is an understatement. In some of these, we’ve seen
reduction in pricing from the system vendor as much as 40% but interestingly
there’s one other twist to this. And the twist is, we’re actually now seeing
customers buying storage first in advance of the system servers. They do this for
many reasons. The customer doesn’t know the performance they may need so
they want to bring in a server and try it and, if in fact, the storage is in place they
can get a benchmark and establish a metric against that storage system. Then
bring another server in and bring another server in and basically they can
determine what is the right server and what’s the right size of system. It may not
be a T-500 with four processors, it might be an I-70. W e’ve seen some real
leverage from our customers to be able to do that.
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
24 x 7 Warranty
W arranty is a very important point. Every Symmetrix goes out the door with a
standard two year, 24 by 7 warranty. Do you know what the value of that is?
Many system vendors don’t even offer 24 by 7 and if they do they can’t offer the
same guaranteed response times we do. Not only that, the story is, you call the
guy, he comes out, he takes a look at it and then he has to go off and get parts.
W e’ve got remote support; we don’t have a problem. W e dial in, figure out what
the problem is and we show up with the right parts. So even if you could get this
service from your other system vendors it wouldn’t be of the same high quality
and responsiveness of what you get bundled in with your EMC Symmetrix as
part of your purchase price.
You’ll find, if you look at standard offerings, they don’t come 24 by 7, they come
with an option to go to 24 by 7 and there’s a significant value savings in that.
You just need to look, on a case by case basis, which vendor you’re dealing with
and you can establish a pretty significant value. All you have to do is say to your
customer “How much are you spending a year on maintenance?” The first two
years of maintenance are already taken care of with EMC.
This is also useful as a positioning tool. W e’re serious about this storage. W e’re
serious about your application. W hy would anybody want anything but 24 by 7
from a mainframe class organization?
Save Floor Space
Everyone’s impressed by the fact that we use much less floor space because,
again, these HPs and Sun Arrays just seem to expand all over the floor but
unless somebody’s up against the wall, literally and figuratively speaking, it’s
hard to get the importance of that point across.
Let me give you two examples. I talked to a customer and because of the good
job Symmetrix did, they had so much room in their data center it just didn’t
matter. But I’ve run into many more customers where they have a room is a
problem. They have room that’s dedicated to open systems and I’ve said
“W here are you putting this additional storage and servers that are coming in?”
and the answer is that they’re having to build another building. So I ask them “If
we could delay or defer your expansion into a new building, not just the
floorspace you save at $15 a square foot, what’s that worth?”
You have to ask the question. And you may not have all the answers but the
value is in asking the question and getting the customer to agree to the value.
And if the problem isn’t there today there’s a good chance it’ll be there in the
future: growth, capacity problems, performance challenges.
So, we’ve made it through our chart. W e hope we’ve spawned some interesting
thinking about how you can establish value with your customers.
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0
Keep in mind the goal is to get numbers in the column on the right side of the
chart. Put a stake in the ground, establish a value that is high and let the
customer come back with what that number should be so when the customer
leaves and asks “W hy EMC Open Storage?” the question is answered and he
now has a tool to sell this internally with his management.
EMC Company Confidential
2 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 0