Utility storage vendor 3Par recently introduced its Utility data lifecycle management (DLM) solution, which it touts as an alternative to information lifecycle management (ILM). The company claims it offers a scalable, fully tiered array to provide complete data lifecycle management. However, in order to believe this claim, one has to believe that there is a difference between ILM and DLM.
3Par has announced its new data lifecycle management product.
3Par’s Utility DLM is an ‘integrated’ DLM (iDLM) strategy, something the company is marketing as a much simpler alternative to ILM-based strategies for cost optimizing storage.
ILM is a term that has been hijacked by the storage vendors to describe a tiered storage approach, where structured data and unstructured information are moved from one storage tier to another according to the value and age of the information or data. The movement process is managed by policies. What 3Par is describing as DLM is pretty much the same thing; the data is moved from one storage tier to another, and again this process must be managed by policies.
By arguing that its DLM is different to ILM, 3Par is missing a huge marketing opportunity by confusing the issue and detracting attention away from the major advantage and differentiator of its product, which is that all of its storage tiers are within the same array.
Another advantage is that the solution supports thin provisioning, enabling organizations to provide higher utilization rates and delay the purchase of additional storage resources. With all of the tiers being in the same array, it is simple to move data between tiers.
Most tiered storage solutions use different arrays for each tier, often from different vendors, which adds to the complexity and cost of the solution. 3Par should be emphasizing the benefits of its solution, including simplified management, a less complex environment, and lower cost.
By concentrating on these aspects, it will be much more successful in highlighting its differentiators, rather than wasting marketing opportunities by becoming embroiled in terminology wars.
Source: OpinionWire by Butler Group (www.butlergroup.com)