Rewriting the Rulesfor

Total Cost of Storage Ownership

Michael MarchiSenior Director, Enterprise Marketing

mjm@netapp.com

PRESENTATION HAS NOTES FOR EACH SLIDE

2

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

3

Total Cost of Storage OwnershipFactors That Effect TCO

Initial investment cost

Cost of downtime

Operational cost

4

Initial Investment CostImportant 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?

5

Single Copy Data Sharing

NT Data Unix Data

20 TeraBytes 20 TeraBytes

Traditional Disk sharing Single Copy Data sharing

Total Storage = 40 TB

NT Data Unix Data

Total Storage = 30 TB

Same Data with 50% Shared

6

Network Centric Database Example

IBM DB2 or Oracle Database

Sun

UNIXApplication Server

Compaq

Windows Reporting Tool

7

Point-In-Time Copies

0

5

10

15

20

25

EMC Symmetrix F880 F880c

TB

's

Weekly 1

Daily 7

Daily 6

Daily 5

Daily 4

Daily 3

Daily 2

Daily 1

RAID

Assumes 5% data change per Snapshot

3.71.9 Usable

7.3

8

Disaster Recovery

0

5

10

15

20

25

EMC Symmetrix F880 F880c

TB

's

Weekly 1

Daily 7

Daily 6

Daily 5

Daily 4

Daily 3

Daily 2

Daily 1

RAID

3.71.9 Usable

7.3

X 2

9

Information Availability - Cost of Downtime

Source: GartnerGroup

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

Damaged Reputation customers suppliers financial markets banks business partners etc.

Other Expenses Temporary employees, equipment rental, overtime costs, extra

shipping costs, travel expenses, etc.

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

Revenue direct loss compensatory payments lost future revenues billing losses investment losses

Know your downtime costs per hour, day, two days, etc.

10

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)

StorageAppsServers

11

Causes of Downtime

30%

15%10%5%

30%

5%

5%

PlannedDowntimePeople

Hardware

Environment

Server Software

Client Software

NetworkSoftware

12

Activities Freq. Other NetApp Capacity Planning & Expansion

2 8 hrs 10 mins

Storage Reconfiguration 1 8 hrs 15 mins

Upgrades 2 8 hrs 6 mins

Performance Tuning 1 6 hrs -

System Changes 1 4 hrs 3 mins

New Systems 1 4 hrs 3 mins

Total Downtime 38 hrs 37 mins

Minimizing Planned Downtime

Planned downtime is a major contributor to dataavailability

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

13

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!)

14

OperatorErrors

ApplicationErrors

TechnologyFailures

Causes of Unplanned Downtime

20%

40%

40%

Less Components Redundant Components Cluster Failover SnapMirror™ for DR

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

Multiple point-in-time copy with low overhead

Fast Recovery of Entire Filesystem, Database

Source: GartnerGroup, 1999

15

Storage Management Costs

Management:

$3.50 per MB - operational

cost per year

Hardware:$0.35 per MB - one time initial investment cost

Source: SNIA, 10/99

16

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

17

Lowering Total Cost of Storage OwnershipMethodology

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

18

TCO – Architecture Choices

Server Centric

Network Centric

Gbit SAN

Storage Centric

FC-AL SAN

L

O

W

E

R

T

C

O

19

GartnerGroupTotal Cost of Storage Ownership Report

“NAS cost saving is $13,650 per storage expansion when compared to SAN”

20

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

21

TCO Study byDetails

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.

22

TCO Study bySurvey Respondents by Annual Company Revenue

35%

27%

17%

15% 6%

Less than $250M

$250M - $1B

$1B - $10B

$10B - $25B

Greater than$25B

23

TCO Study bySurvey Respondents by Industry Segment

15%

13%

11%9%9%9%

27%

7%

GovernmentInformationFinanceProf ServicesMedicalNon-ProfitsManufacturingOther

24

TCO Study bySurvey Result by Vendor Brand

40%

21%

17%

22%Compaq

EMC

Hitach

NetworkAppliance

25

TCO Study byDatabase Allocation for Application Types

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Data Warehousing

Testing & Reporting

Production

OLTP

ERP

Web Content

E-Commerce

CRM

Other

Percentage of Respondents

26

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”

27

TCO Study byDatabase Size & Growth – Next 12 Months

610 305

540 162

700 210

950 100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Network Appliance

EMC

Hitachi

Compaq25%

30%

30%

50%

Growth Rate

28

TCO Study byScaling – AVG Time Required to Scale Up by 200 GB.

4 hours

3 hours

5 hours

0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000

Network Appliance

EMC

Hitachi

Compaq

30 minutes

29

TCO Study byIT Staff Utilization

0% 50% 100%

NetworkAppliance

EMC

Hitachi

Compaq

Value-Add TasksRoutine Tasks

30

TCO Study byUser Satisfaction and Data Availability

4.8

4.4

3.8

4.2

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

NetworkAppliance

EMC

Hitachi

Compaq

SatisfactionRating

Highest

31

TCO Study byData Availability

67% 33%

57% 29% 14%

25% 50% 25%

19% 31% 31% 19%

0% 50% 100%

NetworkAppliance

EMC

Hitachi

Compaq

Over 99.5%99% to 99.5%97% to 99%95% to 97%Less than 95%

32

TCO Study byTotal Cost of Ownership per Annum

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

NetworkAppliance

EMC Hitachi Compaq

Downtime

Support, Operations &Maintenance

Implentation (Installation,Training)

Product (Hardware,Software, Upgrades)

NetApp savings: 75% 80% 70%

33

Collaborative TCO Reports Say The Same…

34

TCO Study byData 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”

35

TCO Study byData 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”

36

NetApp Research on TCO

Lower Total Cost of Ownership

-

$.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

Server-Centric Storage Centric NetApp

Mill

ion

s

Total Investments Total Operational Costs

3-year TCO Comparisons

www.netapp.com

37

Lowering Total Cost of Storage OwnershipMethodology

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

38

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.

39

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

40

Lowering Operational Costs

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

– Strategic Research

41

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 Logs

Oracle Database

Gigabit

Oracle Database InstanceF840

42

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

43

Lowering Operational Costs

Simple expandability

File system not limited by disk shelf

Result:

Less administration

Flexibility

NetApp’s 100% Compatible Product Line - File system expansion

Initial file system

Adding disks withsingle command toexpand file system

Disks can be added to any open disk slot

44

Lowering Operational Costs

15 minute installation

No need for tuning. Self tuning appliance

Integrated RAID. No RAID administration

3 minute software upgrades

45

Network Centric TCO Analysis3 Year

Source: Network Appliance

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00Operational Cost

Initial Investment Cost

CompaqTaskSmart

EMCIP4700

SunN8200

NetAppF820

$ M

illio

ns

46

Lowering Total Cost of Storage OwnershipMethodology

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

47

New Project DeploymentsLowest TCO is with NetApp

Customer Examples

49

Network Appliance Customer Example

580 Terabytes

Numerous remote locations

10 administrators

58 TB per administrator

50

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”

51

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”

52

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”

53

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.”

54

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.”

55

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.”

56

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.”

57

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