Storage Virtualization Takes Steps Toward Removing Barriers to Broader Adoption
Anyone wonder why storage virtualization is still growing relatively slowly while server virtualization platforms like VMware have gone on a tear? If so, a look at the licensing strategies that these two respective virtualization technologies have adopted provides some insight into why.
In server virtualization, once a software feature is licensed, it is available to all of the virtual machines (VMs) hosted by that server virtualization OS. Granted, there is a caveat in that the software license pricing is dependent upon the number of CPUs in the physical host. In the case of VMware, it licenses its software in pairs with 2, 4, 8 and 16 license combinations so the price does go up as more CPUs are added to the physical host.
Conversely many storage virtualization software licensing models are based upon a capacity based model. Under this licensing model, an organization may initially buy 10 TBs of storage capacity and some software features to go with it (volume management, snapshots and possibly replication).
Yet what happens with the storage virtualization licensing model is that if more storage capacity is purchased (say another 10 TBs), the organization must purchase new additional capacity licenses in order for their existing software licenses for volume management, snapshot or replication software to work with that new storage capacity.
This is not wrong, per se, but companies vote with their check books and based on the rapid adoption of server virtualization, it suggests that this is the licensing model clearly preferred by companies. After all, if server virtualization and its associated costs didn't make economic sense, companies would not do it. However, it appears that the server virtualization licensing model is more palatable to end-users than the one currently offered by many storage virtualization providers.
To understand why this it is and what needs to change, two questions need to be answered:
This is where the licensing model associated with storage virtualization looks to need some changes. Users view new storage capacity in much the same context as they view new VMs - as long as they have ample processing power, why should they be penalized if they add more storage capacity?
In the same manner, if companies purchase more storage capacity and now need more CPUs to support new features like asynchronous replication or snapshots, I suspect they will be more inclined to pay for new software licenses. However as long as storage virtualization providers continue to tie software licensing for new features solely to growth in storage capacity, this can only serve to slow its adoption.
One storage virtualization provider that is looking to change this trend in storage virtualization licensing practices is RELDATA. It has recently changed its software model so that when you license the software features with a base unit, all of those features are available regardless of how much storage capacity an organization adds in the future.
So for example, the MSRP for its 9240i is approximately $25K which includes software licensing for iSCSI, unlimited snapshots and twelve (12) 1 TB SAS drives. But because of RELDATA's new "Save as you Grow" program, organizations can now add more capacity to the 9240i without needing to pay more to use its iSCSI or snapshots features in conjunction with their newly added storage capacity. Further, if an organization does opt to add another software feature, such as replication, at some point in the future, it can also be used with all storage capacity under that the 9240i's management.
No matter how great or wonderful a new technology is (and virtualization certainly falls into that category), its adoption is often impeded by costly licensing models that preclude its broader adoption. RELDATA's recent decision to remove this software licensing barrier to the adoption of storage virtualization is representative of a step in the right direction for users. It encourages them to implement and take advantage of storage virtualization without worrying about any hidden licensing costs lurking in the background should they decide to add more performance or storage capacity in the future.
In server virtualization, once a software feature is licensed, it is available to all of the virtual machines (VMs) hosted by that server virtualization OS. Granted, there is a caveat in that the software license pricing is dependent upon the number of CPUs in the physical host. In the case of VMware, it licenses its software in pairs with 2, 4, 8 and 16 license combinations so the price does go up as more CPUs are added to the physical host.
Conversely many storage virtualization software licensing models are based upon a capacity based model. Under this licensing model, an organization may initially buy 10 TBs of storage capacity and some software features to go with it (volume management, snapshots and possibly replication).
Yet what happens with the storage virtualization licensing model is that if more storage capacity is purchased (say another 10 TBs), the organization must purchase new additional capacity licenses in order for their existing software licenses for volume management, snapshot or replication software to work with that new storage capacity.
This is not wrong, per se, but companies vote with their check books and based on the rapid adoption of server virtualization, it suggests that this is the licensing model clearly preferred by companies. After all, if server virtualization and its associated costs didn't make economic sense, companies would not do it. However, it appears that the server virtualization licensing model is more palatable to end-users than the one currently offered by many storage virtualization providers.
To understand why this it is and what needs to change, two questions need to be answered:
- Why is the processing-based licensing model more acceptable to companies?
- What changes are storage virtualization providers making to their licensing models?
This is where the licensing model associated with storage virtualization looks to need some changes. Users view new storage capacity in much the same context as they view new VMs - as long as they have ample processing power, why should they be penalized if they add more storage capacity?
In the same manner, if companies purchase more storage capacity and now need more CPUs to support new features like asynchronous replication or snapshots, I suspect they will be more inclined to pay for new software licenses. However as long as storage virtualization providers continue to tie software licensing for new features solely to growth in storage capacity, this can only serve to slow its adoption.
One storage virtualization provider that is looking to change this trend in storage virtualization licensing practices is RELDATA. It has recently changed its software model so that when you license the software features with a base unit, all of those features are available regardless of how much storage capacity an organization adds in the future.
So for example, the MSRP for its 9240i is approximately $25K which includes software licensing for iSCSI, unlimited snapshots and twelve (12) 1 TB SAS drives. But because of RELDATA's new "Save as you Grow" program, organizations can now add more capacity to the 9240i without needing to pay more to use its iSCSI or snapshots features in conjunction with their newly added storage capacity. Further, if an organization does opt to add another software feature, such as replication, at some point in the future, it can also be used with all storage capacity under that the 9240i's management.
No matter how great or wonderful a new technology is (and virtualization certainly falls into that category), its adoption is often impeded by costly licensing models that preclude its broader adoption. RELDATA's recent decision to remove this software licensing barrier to the adoption of storage virtualization is representative of a step in the right direction for users. It encourages them to implement and take advantage of storage virtualization without worrying about any hidden licensing costs lurking in the background should they decide to add more performance or storage capacity in the future.
Leave a comment