The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3
-
@scottalanmiller said
12? I know more than that many customers personally. They have lots of deployments.
That's what the rep said at the SW booth...He named one of them which is a big uni.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
But the problem is, a Scale system is too expensive to take a leap of faith with, you need to get it right the first time.
That I understand. But... that is less of an issue with a Scale than with any other enterprise appliance, right? The VMAX and 3PAR come to mind, neither can you get a single node for the starter price of a Scale.
-
@scottalanmiller said
That I understand. But... that is less of an issue with a Scale than with any other enterprise appliance, right? The VMAX and 3PAR come to mind, neither can you get a single node for the starter price of a Scale.
But are we comparing Apples to Apples here?
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@scottalanmiller said
12? I know more than that many customers personally. They have lots of deployments.
That's what the rep said at the SW booth...He named one of them which is a big uni.
Something fishy there, there has to be some confusion.
-
UK only, how many deployments of your systems.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@scottalanmiller said
That I understand. But... that is less of an issue with a Scale than with any other enterprise appliance, right? The VMAX and 3PAR come to mind, neither can you get a single node for the starter price of a Scale.
But are we comparing Apples to Apples here?
No, the Scale is a full cluster and total stack at that price, not only one node and one little piece of the big picture. So the Scale is dramatically more accessible and more complete.
-
@scottalanmiller said
No, the Scale is a full cluster and total stack at that price, not only one node and one little piece of the big picture. So the Scale is dramatically more accessible and more complete.
But Won't VMAX and 3PAIR say otherwise?
Ubiquiti is 1/4th of the price of Cisco kit but I know and understand why.
Why is Scale much much cheaper?
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
UK only, how many deployments of your systems.
OH, UK only. That would be a smaller number. I know lots of US deployments. The only concern there would be Dell's supply chain though, right? I mean it is the same product, there is nothing UK specific about it. Do you have concern with Dell parts in the UK?
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
Ubiquiti is 1/4th of the price of Cisco kit but I know and understand why.
Because Cisco sales through marketing and can charge anything they want because value is not part of the equation.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
But Won't VMAX and 3PAIR say otherwise?
No, they'd be lying through their teeth to claim that one node was two or that storage was compute.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
Why is Scale much much cheaper?
Same reason Ubiquiti is... high volume, commodity hardware, open source base, in house technology with low overhead cost, high vertical integration to capture revenue from all points in the platform pricing (compute, storage, platform, support, etc.)
The real question should be... why would you assume that it would cost more? It's hard to explain why something is "cheap" when it seems like a reasonable price. What makes you feel that it is unreasonable low requiring explanation?
-
@scottalanmiller said
The real question should be... why would you assume that it would cost more?
Because if everyone else is selling Apples at $10 a pack and has done for years and a new shop opens which sells them at $5 a pop.
Either the new shop is doing something screwy.
Everyone else is ripping you off/charging because they can.9/10, the answer is generally the cheaper guy is doing something screwy but every once in a while you get a nice surprise.
-
If you were to price out the Scale hardware yourself, you could figure out where their profit opportunity is. Then figure that they deal in large scale so they get better deals than you will, as well. If all you wanted was the Scale hardware, you could do it much cheaper. Their system is designed to need minimal support which keeps their support costs low by not needing to do so much. Since the software that they use is in house or open source, there is no hard cost associated with that. So if you look at the difference in sales cost to the hardware cost, that's the margin and it is very clearly there. They need it, as there is a lot of in house development and such, but you can see that they have solid margins built in.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
Because if everyone else is selling Apples at $10 a pack and has done for years and a new shop opens which sells them at $5 a pop.
But the issue isn't that someone was selling apples and now someone else is selling apples. It's that someone was selling oranges at $10 and now someone has a pear for $5. It's a different thing, there is no reason to assume that it would cost the same.
But, this costs more, not less. If you compare three Dell R430 without Scale, that's $5. If you look at the Scale, it's $10. So they aren't selling the same thing for less, they are selling it for more (with more value added, of course.)
That's the "apples to apples" pricing difference. What EMC and 3PAR do is unrelated, it's only a talking point because they are similarly appliances, not competing devices.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
Everyone else is ripping you off/charging because they can.
9/10, the answer is generally the cheaper guy is doing something screwy but every once in a while you get a nice surprise.
Cisco, VMware, IBM, Microsoft... they all charge an arm and a leg because they've taught people that big names are worth any price and they sell through managers, not IT people.
All of them have low cost or free competitors that blow their doors off... Ubiquiti, Xen, Dell, CentOS.
If you price out a big name that sells on marketing muscle, the price is nearly always double what it should be. So no surprises there.
-
https://www.scalecomputing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/networking-guidelines.pdf
Hmm. I think some testing with Ubiquiti gear would be welcome.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
https://www.scalecomputing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/networking-guidelines.pdf
Hmm. I think some testing with Ubiquiti gear would be welcome.
It would be, but UBNT doesn't have 10GigE switches yet. You "almost always" want to be on 10GigE with a Scale cluster, so the GigE stuff doesn't get the big priority. We would love to be on UBNT for all of our switching but they just don't have what we need. So we have Dell 10GigE switches that feed up into our UBNT.
-
@scottalanmiller said
It would be, but UBNT doesn't have 10GigE switches yet. You "almost always" want to be on 10GigE with a Scale cluster,
Assuming you have 2 clusters in 2 locations, how is it over say 50 down, 50 up WAN connections?
-
Can the Scale stuff interlink between the units directly over 10Gig and then for user connections to resources they use the standard Gigabit?
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@scottalanmiller said
It would be, but UBNT doesn't have 10GigE switches yet. You "almost always" want to be on 10GigE with a Scale cluster,
Assuming you have 2 clusters in 2 locations, how is it over say 50 down, 50 up WAN connections?
That's very different. The backplane is where you want 10GigE, because that is your local storage network talking to itself. You have reads and writes that traverse that backplane. It's not the LAN traffic, but the internal cluster traffic.
Going between clusters is very dependent on a lot of different things. I've not tested it but it would be very workload dependent and dependent on how you set up the two locations to work. But it is async, so the speed of the WAN link does not slow down the cluster, but the speed of the backplane does.
