1 / 35

CommandCentral 4.0 Competitive Analysis

CommandCentral 4.0 Competitive Analysis. Index of Competitors. CommandCentral 4.0 vs. EMC, EMC ControlCenter. EMC Company Information. Date Founded: 1979; NASDAQ:EMC Revenue: $6.24 billion (2003) HQ: Hopkinton, MA Product distribution: Direct Channel, Dell, several small re-sellers.

xiu
Download Presentation

CommandCentral 4.0 Competitive Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CommandCentral 4.0 Competitive Analysis

  2. Index of Competitors

  3. CommandCentral 4.0 vs. EMC, EMC ControlCenter

  4. EMCCompany Information • Date Founded: 1979; NASDAQ:EMC • Revenue: $6.24 billion (2003) • HQ: Hopkinton, MA • Product distribution:Direct Channel, Dell, several small re-sellers

  5. Product and FunctionalityEMC ControlCenter (ECC) • Product – ECC Suite • SRM Monitoring and Reporting • StorageScope – Provides asset utilization reporting on Storage Infrastructure • StorageScope File Level Reporter – File level monitoring and reporting • Workload Analyzer – Performance resource management • SRM Planning and Provisioning • SAN Manager – Discover, config & monitor SAN environment • SAN Architect – SAN planning, design and validation • Automated Resource Manager – Policies/rules based Storage provisioning

  6. Product and Functionality EMC ControlCenter (ECC) • Device Management • Symmetrix Optimizer – Automate Symmetrix performance tuning • Symmetrix Manager – Discover, monitor and configure Symmetrix • Navisphere Management Suite – CLARiiON management tool

  7. ECC Weakness 14 separately architected Tools for SNM, SRM, SSM ECC runs on Windows only. Mission Critical High Availability SOM implementation questionable Spindle Views available only on EMC Symmetrix Integrated Policy-based Workflow not available Pricing based on storage capacity TB. Necessitates “Link and Launch” capability for vendor tools Requires several different modules to match CP Suite capability. Large footprint agents, Large CPU resource consumption, several agents required Vendor Lock-in - Single Hardware & Software reduces choice, increase cost DMZ & Firewall deployment limitation/ No support for NAT No support for Exchange or VCS No Backup Operations Management Global Reporting not available Prolonged installation time ECC footprint is excessive Too many components/module required – increases cost and resources CommandCentral 4.0 Strength Heterogeneous H/w; no hardware agenda Strong Workflow Strong support for Network Volume Manager Tight integration with other VRTS products CCSVC supports NBU, BackupExec, as well as 3rd party backup applications such as Legato and TSM CCSVC has a defined roadmap that will include support for server provisioning/management (Ejasent, OpForce) Supports all major O/S platform One common Database (Sybase ASA) One Agent required as compared to sixteen agents for ECC for the same functionality Very few components needed to deliver the functionality Offers Server Provisioning, Application Profiling and VERITAS Application Integration CommandCentral 4.0 Silver Bullets vs. EMC ControlCenter

  8. Competitive SummaryEMC ControlCenter • ECC components are single tasked – hence many needed which increases cost and resources • ECC is not scalable • Weak Workflow • Professional services needed for almost every ECC installation, increasing cost to customer • H/W driven agenda – customers will have to lock-in with them • Weak at Application level reporting • ECC is rigid, needs intense and complex administration, which overburden customers with more time and money

  9. CommandCentral 4.0 versus AppIQ, Storage Authority Suite

  10. AppIQ Company Information • Date Founded: July 2001(privately held) • Funding: $20 million - Matrix Partners, North Bridge Venture Partners, etc • HQ: Burlington, MA • Office Locations: Chicago, UK & India • Number of employees: 75 • Product distribution: HDS (since Oct 2003), partnered w/ Sun (Feb 2004), SGI (Sept 2003)

  11. Product AppIQ StorageAuthority Suite • Product – StorageAuthority Suite • StorageAuthority Manager (main console) • Application Modules • StorageAuthority for Oracle: manages the capacity, performance and availability of Oracle database applications • StorageAuthority for MSFT Exchange: manages the capacity, performance and availability of Exchange-based messaging environments

  12. Functionality AppIQ StorageAuthority • StorageAuthority for File Servers: Provides end-to-end capacity, performance, and user consumption management for file servers • StorageAuthority for VRTS NBU: Provides backup and recovery management capabilities for data protection and recoverability. • Business Modules: StorageAuthority Provisioning: Provisioning of storage capacity to bring new projects and applications on-line or expand the capacity of existing applications. Automates LUN mapping, zone creation, and host provisioning. StorageAuthority Chargeback:Auto-discovers and registers physical and logical storage assets and asset attributes, and provides two (?) methods of chargeback

  13. AppIQ StorageAuthority Weakness Linked to HDS hardware Dropping direct sales – pure OEM HDS resale relationship not going well < $1 MM revenue in 2003 Not financially stable No standalone support for NBU, VCS or Foundation products Requires licensing of Aptare software to support NBU No support for Legato No defined product roadmap for server monitoring/management Solaris and Windows only; No support for HP-UX or AIX Limited Workflow (limited to Storage Provisioning) Managed Element Support exclusively dependent on SNIA SMI model and implementation timeline Limited Reporting CommandCentral 4.0 Strength Heterogeneous H/W support; no hardware agenda VRTS is cash strong Strong Workflow Strong support for Network Volume Manager Tight integration with other VRTS products Directly present across the Globe CCSVC supports NBU, BackupExec, as well as 3rd party backup applications such as Legato and TSM CCSVC has a defined roadmap that will includes support for server provisioning/management (Ejasent, OpForce) Supports HP-UX and AIX CommandCentral 4.0 Silver Bullets vs. AppIQ

  14. Competitive SummaryAppIQ StorageAuthority Suite • AppIQ is not financially stable • AppIQ is linked to HDS hardware • AppIQ has limited resources to address customer storage management requirements • AppIQ does not have full breadth of products to address customer’s high availability requirements (Veritas has VCS, VVM, VFS, VVR) • ApIQ requires licensing of outside technology for management (Aptare) of Veritas NetBackup • AppIQ StorageAuthority does not have a defined utility computing roadmap to address high availability, server monitoring and management, performance, network etc.

  15. CommandCentral 4.0 vs. Aptare, StorageConsole 4.0

  16. Aptare Company Information • Founded in 1993 • Privately held • Offices in Campbell (CA) and New York City • Major customers – Merck, AT&T, SecureData and HP • Alliances – AppIQ, Oracle, SecureData, Source Consulting • Product – StorageConsole 4.0 (v4.0 announced on June 02, 2004)

  17. Product and Functionality Aptare StorageConsole • StorageConsole gives details on backup infrastructure, SLA compliance and end-user consumption and provides info on: • Data Availability Protection - File-level backup metric analysis enables immediate identification of data availability threats. • Data Recovery Management - Point-and-Click restore tools and up-to-the-minute recovery reports empower end-users and ensure correct data is restored. • Service Level Assurance - Real-time backup performance measured against pre-defined service levels to create organization-wide accountability for service success. • Asset Utilization and Billing - Advanced tracking of storage resource consumption allows for performance optimization and backup window compliance. Usage-based financial tools enable advanced financial management and improved return on investment (ROI).

  18. Aptare Weakness Single product company Only supports NetBackup Limited to backup reporting Weak workflow (integrates with only Plexus FloWare) No reporting for vault, duplicate, archive or restore No ad-hoc reporting No support for HP-UX No roadmap beyond backup No presence outside US CommandCentral 4.0 Strength VRTS is cash strong Strong Workflow Directly present across the Globe CC supports NBU, BackupExec, as well as 3rd party backup applications such as Legato and TSM CC has a defined roadmap that will include support for server provisioning/management (Ejasent, OpForce) Strong and tightly integrated provisioning Single sign-on Strong drill down visibility from Applications to LUNs Strong in Managements, Discovery and Reporting Supports al major Operating Systems CommandCentral 4.0 Silver Bullets vs. Aptare StorageConsle

  19. Competitive SummaryAptare StorageConsole • Customer to end up with many vendors in order to fulfill SRM needs • For reporting on NetBackup why go to Aptare? Come to VRTS • No long term viability

  20. CommandCentral 4.0 vs. Bocada, Backup Report

  21. BocadaCompany Information • Founded in 1999 • HQ in Bellevue, WA • Privately held • Major customers (referenceable)– Unilever, Reader’s Digest (300 customers across 15 Countries)

  22. Product Functionality Bocada BackupReport • BackupReport Modules: • Backup Reliability and Diagnostics - Provides view of backup activity and error sources by scanning backup servers, clients, and targets across the enterprise. • Backup Resource Management™ - Provides view of the volume, impact, and source of data backed up over a specific time period. Facility to drill down on data volumes and transfer rates to identify throughput and load imbalances. Also analyzes and reports on downtime, failures, and throughput for tape libraries, drives, and tapes, while tracking underutilized tapes, the volume of current and expired data by tape, and tapes required for restores. • Backup Audit and Charge-Back - Maintains an auditable record of all backup activity for automatic charge-back to data owners. It also allows IT groups to comply with service level agreements, enterprise backup policies, and the guidelines of lawyers, accountants, and other policy overseers. IT staff can immediately see which departments consume the most backup resources, what the fixed and variable costs of resource consumption are, and how consumption and costs are changing over time.

  23. Bocada Weakness Server is Windows only No web support Custom reporting requires writing SQL Only basic grouping in business views Charge back limitations - only backup/restore Solely focused around the backup operator and doesn't correlate to the larger needs of the business No Automated scheduled email reporting and export Limited to Backup only No roadmap beyond backup Long term viability of the company CommandCentral 4.0 Strength CC is web-based; Supports all major platforms Strong Workflow CC provides multiple ways of grouping same clients  Multiple levels of hierarchical grouping in CC CC provides allows you to filter data by Business View, allowing custom portals for management, "customers" (internal/external) or operations CC can charge backup by type of backup job (restore, archive, vault, duplicate, catalog, etc.) CC can offer multiple rates for different customers / departments CC can offer multiple rates for different time periods (e.g., 2003 v. 2004) Tight integration with other VRTS products CCSVC has a defined roadmap that will include support for server provisioning/management (Ejasent, OpForce) Strong and tightly integrated provisioning Automated scheduled email reporting and export* Much more customizable, drill-down, user-friendly reporting* Customizable workflow for common backup processes VRTS is cash strong CommandCentral 4.0 Silver Bullets vs. Bocada BackupReport

  24. Competitive SummaryBocada BackupReport • Limited to Windows only • Single product company – customers will be forced to buy products from different vendors to satisfy their SRM needs and end up with multiple tools • Reports visibility limited to Backup operators • Reports of little or no benefit to business managers • Primitive automation for report distribution/email • No roadmap beyond Backup • Why buy reporting tool from a third party? Buy them from the vendor whose backup product you are using

  25. CommandCentral 4.0 vs. Storability, Global Storage Manager

  26. Storability Company Information • Founded in February 2000 • HQ in Boston; Software Development Center in Pune, India • Privately held • Investors • Battery Ventures, Madison Dearborn, Lightspeed, Technology Partners, Sprout Group, and Lee Munder • Four Rounds - $69 Million in Venture Capital has been raised • No. of employees – 75 (40 in Pune) • Revenue in FY2003 - $ 2.1 MM; Target for FY 2004 - $12 MM • Major customers – Deutsche Bank, AIG, AT&T, Pfizer • Alliances – StorageTek

  27. Product Functionality Storability Global Storage Manager • Global Storage Manager (GSM) components • Data Collectors • Smart Agents • Host Agents • Messaging & Aggregation Middleware • Set of Management Applications • Documented Access Methods • Management Console: Is a portal for viewing operational status, performance monitoring and trending, utilization, allocation and resource availability.  • Administration Console: Provides an operational view of the storage environment. It communicates with the Agents.

  28. Storability Weakness Separate Administrative and Management Consoles - Minimal aggregated functions Positioned as an ESRM application with limited SNM functionality Storability has limited workflow No automation or policy-based best practices No active provisioning Array Provisioning limited to LUN Masking Fabric provisioning is not available Limited device and platform support in general Server supports only Windows and Solaris No single sign-on Limited concept of user portal and less report customizability/management reporting Minimal security enforcement due to link and launch of native tools Obviously no roadmap beyond storage / backup No Server Provisioning Mostly discovery & reporting, weak in management Multi-tiered architecture CommandCentral 4.0 Strength VRTS is cash strong Strong Workflow Strong support for Network Volume Manager Tight integration with other VRTS products Directly present across the Globe CCSVC supports NBU, BackupExec, as well as 3rd party backup applications such as Legato and TSM CCSVC has a defined roadmap that will include support for server provisioning/management (Ejasent, OpForce) Support for most of the Op Sys Strong and tightly integrated provisioning Single sign-on Strong drill down visibility from Applications to LUNs Strong in Managements, Discovery and Reporting CommandCentral 4.0 Silver Bullets vs. Storability Global Storage Manager

  29. Competitive SummaryStorability Global Storage Manager • Views and Levels • levels of a view is limited to one level • only has basic grouping vs our “business views” • exploit this is through our demos that take multi-level views (Geography is a good example) and show how you can drill-down from top level to bottom and see the composition at each level.  • Backup Report Filtering • No filters such as Backup Level (Full, Incr etc...) • No features on filtering on any of the objects within the one level of a view • No active management / provisioning • They are trying to fix this with the acquisition of ProvisionSoft but we'll see where that goes • No roadmap beyond storage / backup • No Long-term company viability (heard that investors want their monies out/back) • Storage TEK itself (their Remote Managed Storage group which they acquired from Storability - Storability's old SSP business) is evaluating CCService and views it as different than Storability

  30. CommandCentral 4.0 vs. CreekPath Suite 3.0

  31. CreekPath Company Information • Headquarters in Boulder County, Colorado • Founded in 1999 • Investors include A.G. Edwards Capital, New Enterprise Associates (NEA), Sequel Partners, and TeleSoft Partners. • Product – CreekPath Suite 3.0 • Key Partnerships - Brocade, EMC, HDS, IBM, McData,StorageTek, LSI, Oracle, BEA, Emulex, JNI, QLogic

  32. Product and Functionality CreekPath Suite 3.0 • Product – CreekPath Suite 3.0 (has five modules) • CreekPath Platform • SNM: SAN Network Management • SRM: Storage Resource Management • SPM: Storage Performance Management • SSM: Storage Service Management • DSM: Data/Storage Security Management • BOM: Backup Operations Management • DOM: Database Operations Management • CreekPath Information Portal • Portal for viewing and reporting • CreekPath Process Automation Modules (PAMs) • Backup Operations Management PAM • CreekPath Suite NetBackup PAM • Database Operations Management • CreekPath Suite Oracle Database PAM

  33. Product and Functionality CreekPath Suite 3.0 • Product – CreekPath Suite 3.0 • CreekPath Suite Scenario Automation Modules (SAMs) • Workflow for creating/expanding file system volumes and database volumes • CreekPath Suite Business Application Modules (BAMs)

  34. CreekPath Weakness Weak Workflow – unable to launch scripts or automation, completely uncustomizable No file level reporting or monitoring No support for VCS No support for Legato, TSM back ups No support for Exchange, DB2, Sybase, etc No Support for Cisco MDS switches No Server provisioning High cost of ownership (customer has to license Oracle separately; separate copy of CreekPath Suite for each Geo location, etc) Solution not scalable CommandCentral 4.0 Strength Strong Workflow Strong drill down to file level reporting & monitoring Offers Server Provisioning, Application Profiling and VERITAS Application Integration Supports applications such as Legato, TSM, Exchange, DB2, Sybase, etc Strong support for Cisco MDS switches Supports all major O/S platform Single integrated database (ASA) Tightly integrated with other VRTS products such as VCS, VM, VxFS, NBU CommandCentral 4.0 Silver Bullets vs. CreekPath Suite 3.0

  35. Competitive SummaryCreekPath Suite 3.0 • Weak and uncustomizable Workflow – They are contemplating at replacing their workflow; very rigid, no automation, cannot launch scripts • No support for VCS, VxFS, Legato, TSM, Exchange, DB2, Sybase, et al • Solution not scalable • High cost of ownership • No reporting and monitoring at File level • Port-based pricing • No time-bound road-map to include integrated automated solution that can provision storage and servers in tandem with SRM, HSM, data protection and high availability

More Related