This Field Report was created by Taneja Group for Nutanix. The Taneja Group analyzed the experiences of seven Nutanix Virtual Computing Platform customers and seven Virtual Computing Environment (VCE) Vblock customers. We did not ‘cherry-pick’ customers for dissatisfaction, delight, or specific use case; we were interested in typical customers’ honest reactions.
As we talked in detail to these customers, we kept seeing the same patterns: 1) VCE users were interested in converged systems; and 2) they chose VCE because VCE partners Cisco, EMC, and/or VMware were embedded in their IT relationships and sales. The VCE process had the advantage of vendor familiarity, but it came at a price: high capital expense, infrastructure and management complexity, expensive support contracts, and concerns over the long-term viability of the VCE partnership. VCE customers typically did not research other options for converged infrastructure prior to deploying the VCE Vblock solution.
In contrast, Nutanix users researched several convergence and hyperconvergence vendors to determine the best possible fit. Nutanix’ advanced web-scale framework gave them simplified architecture and management, reasonable acquisition and operating costs, and considerably faster time to value.
Our conclusion, based on the amount of time and effort spent by the teams responsible for managing converged infrastructure, is that VCE Vblock deployments represent an improvement over traditional architectures, but Nutanix hyperconvergence – especially with its web-scale architecture – is an big improvement over VCE.
This Field Report will compare customer experiences with Nutanix hyperconverged, web-scale infrastructure to VCE Vblock in real-world environments.
The era of IT infrastructure convergence is upon us. Over the past few years Integrated Computing systems – the integration of compute, networking, and storage - have burst onto the scene and have been readily adopted by large enterprise users. The success of these systems has been built by taking well-known IT workloads and combining it with purpose built integrated computing systems optimized for that particular workload. Example workloads today that are being integrated to create these systems are Cloud, Big Data, Virtualization, Database, VDI or even combinations of two or more.
In the past putting these workload solutions together meant having or hiring technology experts with multiple domain knowledge expertise. Integration and validation could take months of on-premise work. Fortunately, technology vendors have matured along with their Integrated Computing systems approach, and now practically every vendor seems to be touting one integrated system or another focused on solving a particular workload problem. The promised set of business benefits delivered by these new systems fall into these key areas:
· Implementation efficiency that accelerates time to realizing value from integrated systems
· Operational efficiency through optimized workload density and an ideally right sized set of infrastructure
· Management efficiency enabled by an integrated management umbrella that ties all of the components of a solution together
· Scale and agility efficiency unlocked through a repeatedly deployable building block approach
· Support efficiency that comes with deeply integrated, pre-configured technologies, overarching support tools, and a single vendor support approach for an entire-set of infrastructure
In late 2013, HP introduced a new portfolio offering called HP ConvergedSystem – a family of systems that includes a specifically designed virtualization offering. ConvergedSystem marked a new offering, designed to tackle key customer pain points around infrastructure and software solution deployment, while leveraging HP’s expertise in large scale build-and-integration processes to herald an entirely new level of agility around speed of ordering and implementation. In this profile, we’ll examine how integrated computing systems marks a serious departure from the inefficiencies of traditional order-build-deploy customer processes, and also evaluate HP’s latest advancement of these types of systems.
Fast-growing virtualized environments present a thorny storage challenge to IT. Whether mission-critical applications with demanding SLAs, VDI rollouts with boot storms, or deploying a private cloud for large dev & test environments: delivering virtualized environments and cloud deployments using traditional storage can stall or break a virtualization project.
Flash technology is certainly part of the solution to performance challenges posed by virtualized workloads, but can be prohibitively expensive to broadly implement across the environment. Although flash can be deployed in a number of targeted ways and placed in the infrastructure, the more it is tied down to specific hosts and workloads, the less benefit it provides to the overall production environment. This in turn causes more management overhead.
Recently Taneja Group ran Tintri VMstore storage through our hands-on validation lab and documented significant large factors of improvement over traditional storage. Those factors accrue through Tintri’s cost-effective acquisition, simplicity and ease of deployment and data migration, effective high performance and availability and smooth expansion over time.
This Field Report validates our impressive lab findings with feedback from the field: six customers who have Tintri storage in production environments. While each customer has a unique own story to tell, we found that everyone documented a compelling value proposition based on TCO factors. Throughout our research we found that Tintri’s approach provides significantly lower TCO than traditional storage solutions.
Scale Computing was an early proponent of hyperconverged appliances and is one of the innovators in this marketplace. Since the release of Scale Computing’s first hyperconverged appliance, many others have come to embrace the elegance of having storage and compute functionality combined on a single server. Even the virtualization juggernaut VMware has seen the benefits of abstracting, pooling, and running storage and compute on shared commodity hardware. VMware’s current hyperconverged storage initiative, VMware Virtual SAN, seems to be gaining traction in the marketplace. We thought it would be an interesting exercise to compare and contrast Scale Computing’s hyperconverged appliance to a hyperconverged solution built around VMware Virtual SAN. Before we delve into this exercise, however, let’s go over a little background history on the topic.
Taneja Group defines hyperconvergence as the integration of multiple previously separate IT domains into one system in order to serve up an entire IT infrastructure from a single device or system. This means that hyperconverged systems contain all IT infrastructure—networking, compute and storage—while promising to preserve the adaptability of the best traditional IT approaches. Such capability implies an architecture built for seamless and easy scaling over time, in a "grow as needed” fashion.
Scale Computing got its start with scale-out storage appliances and has since morphed these into a hyperconverged appliance—HC3. HC3 was the natural evolution of its well-regarded line of scale-out storage appliances, which includes both a hypervisor and a virtual infrastructure manager. HC3’s strong suit is its ease of use and affordability. The product has seen tremendous growth and now has over 900 deployments.
VMware got its start with compute virtualization software and is by far the largest virtualization company in the world. VMware has always been a software company, and takes pride in its hardware agnosticism. VMware’s first attempt to combine shared direct-attached storage (DAS) storage and compute on the same server resulted in a product called “VMware vSphere Storage Appliance” (VSA), which was released in June of 2011. VSA had many limitations and didn’t seem to gain traction in the marketplace and reached its end of availability (EOA) in June of 2014. VMware’s second attempt, VMware Virtual SAN (VSAN), which was announced at VMworld in 2013, shows a lot of promise and seems to be gaining acceptance, with over 300 paying customers using the product. We will be comparing VMware Virtual SAN to Scale Computing’s hyperconverged appliance, HC3, in this paper.
Here we have two companies: Scale Computing, which has transformed from an early innovator in scale-out storage to a company that provides a hyperconverged appliance; and VMware, which was an early innovator in compute virtualization and since has transformed into a company that provides the software needed to create build-your-own hyperconverged systems. We looked deeply into both systems (HC3 and VSAN) and walked both through a series of exercises to see how they compare. We aimed this review at what we consider a sweet spot for these products: small to medium-sized enterprises with limited dedicated IT staff and a limited budget. After spending time with these two solutions, and probing various facets of them, we came up with some strong conclusions about their ability to provide an affordable, easy to use, scalable solution for this market.
The observations we have made for both products are based on hands-on testing both in our lab and on-site at Scale Computing’s facility in Indianapolis, Indiana. Although we talk about performance in general terms, we do not, and you should not, construe this to be a benchmarking test. We have, in good faith, verified all conclusions made around any timing issues. Moreover, the numbers that we are using are generalities that we believe are widely known and accepted in the virtualization community.